to the second Twisd The Iury have found the Rent to be due for both years and we will now intend that he was in possession all the time for which the Rent is found to be due A Prohibition was prayed to the Ecclesiastical Court at Chester to stay procéedings upon a Libel against one William Bayles for teaching School without Licence but it was denied Redman Edolfe TRespass and Ejectment by Original in this Court Sanders moved in Arrest of Iudgment upon a fault in the Original for a bad Original is not help'd by Verdict But upon Mr. Livesey's certifying that there was no Original at all the Plaintiff had Iudgment though in his Declaration he recited the Original In an Action of Assault and Battery and Wounding the Evidence to prove a Provocation was That the Plaintiff put his hand upon his Sword and said If it were not Assize time I would not take such Language from you The question was if that were an Assault The Court agreed that it was not for he declared that he would not Assault him the Iudges being in Town and the intention as well as the act makes an Assault Therefore if one strike another upon the hand or arm or breast in discourse it s no Assault there being no intention to Assault But if one intending to Assault strike at another and miss him this is an Assault so if he hold up his hand against another and say nothing it is an Assault In the principal case the Plaintiff had Iudgment Medlicott Joyner EJectione firmae The Plaintiff at the Trial offer'd in Evidence a Copy of a Déed that was burnt by the Fire the Copy was taken by one Mr. Gardner of the Temple who said he did not examine it by the Original but he writ it and it always lay by him as a true Copy and the Court agréed to have it read the original Déed being proved to be burnt Twisd Feoffée upon Condition is disseised and a Fine levied and five years pass then the Condition is broken the Feoffor may enter for the Disseisor held the Estate subject to the Condition and so did the Conizee for he cannot be in of a better Estate then the Conizor himself was Dawe Swayne AN Action upon the Case was brought against one for suing the Plaintiff in placito debiti for 600 l. and falsly and maliciously affirming to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him 600 l. whereby the Bailiff insisted upon extraordinary Bail to his Damage c. The Defendant traverses absque hoc that he did falsly and maliciously affirm to the Bailiff of Westminster that he did owe him so much Winnington moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action would not lie But the Plaintiff had Iudgment Keel If there had béen no cause of Action an Action upon the Case would not lie because he has a recompence by Law but here was a cause of Action If one should arrest you in an Action of 2000 l. to the intent that you should not find Bail and keep you from practice all this Term and this is found to be falsly and maliciously shall not you have an Action for this this Twisden said he knew to have been Serjeant Rolls his Opinion Morton Foxley's case is That if a man be outlaw'd in another County where he is not known an Action upon the Case will lye so an Action lies against the Sheriff if reasonable Bail be offered and refused Twisd If three men bring an Action and the Defendant put in Bail at the Suit of four they cannot declare but if he had put in Bail at the suit of one that one might declare against him Iudgment was entred as of Trinity Term for the Queen Mother and a Writ of Enquity of damages was taken out returnable this Term and she died in the Vacation-time Resolved that the first was but an interlocutory Iudgment and that the Action was abated by her death Twisd Some have questioned how you shall come to make the death of the party appear between the Verdict and the day in Bank and I have known it offer'd by Affidavit and by suggestion upon the Roll and by motion Troy an Attorney AN Information of Extortion against Troy an Attorney It was moved in arrest of Iudgment That Attorneys are not within any of the Statutes against Extortion and therefore the Information concluded ill the conclusion being contra formam Statuti Twisd The Statute of 3 Jac. cap. 7. is express against Attornies Keel I think as thus advised that Attornies are within all the Statutes of Extortion It was afterwards moved in arrest of Iudgment because the Information was insufficient in the Law for Sir Tho. Fanshawe informed that Mr. Troy being an Attorney of the Court of Common Pleas did at Maidstone cause one Collop to be impleaded for 9 s. 4 d. debt at the suit of one Dudley Sellinger c. and this was ad grave damnum of Collop c. but it is not expressed in what Court he caused him to be impleaded and that which the Defendant is charged with is not an offence for he saith that he did cause him to be impleaded and received the money the same day and perhaps he received the money after he had caused him to be impleaded Then it is not sufficiently alledged that he did illicite receive so much and Extortion ought to be particularly alledged Nor is there any Statute that an Attorney shall receive no more than his just Fées The profession of an Attorney is at Common Law and allowed by the Statute of Westm 1. cap. 26. and the Statute of 3 Jac. does not extend to this matter Non constat in this case if what he received was for Fees or no besides the suit for an offence against that Statute must be brought by the party not by Sir Tho. Fanshawe Keel If the party grieved will not sue for the penalty of treble damages given by that Statute yet the King may prosecute to turn him out of the Roll. Twisd I doubt that nor is it clear whether an Information will lie at all upon that Statute or not for the Statute does not speak of an Information Keel Whenever a Statute makes a thing criminal an Information will lie upon the Statute though not given by express words Twisd It appears here that this money was not received of his Client for he was against Collop But he ought to shew in what Court the impleading was for otherwise it might be before Mr. Major in his Chamber To which the Court agreéd So the Information was quash'd Burnet Holden THere were these two points in the case 1. If the Defendant dye after the day of Nisi prius and before the day in Bank whether the Iudgment shall be said to be given in the life of the Defendant 2. Admit it shall yet whether the Executor shall have the advantage taken from him of retaining to satisfie his own debt To the first
for an excessive Distress for it is a private matter and the party ought to bring his Action To stay Haman Truant AN Action upon the Case brought upon a bargain for Corn and Grass c. The Defendant pleads another Action depending for the same thing The Plaintiff replies that the bargains were several absque hoc that the other Action was brought for the same cause The Defendant demurs specially for that he ought to have concluded to the Country Polyxfen When there is an affirmative they ought to make the next an Issue or otherwise they will plead in infinitum 3 Cro. 755. and accordingly Iudgment was given for the Defendant Fox alii Executors of Mr. Pinsent Vide supra 47. INdebitat Assumpsit The Defendant pleads that two of the Plaintiffs are Infants and yet they all Sue per Attornatum The question is if there be two Executors and one of them under age whether the Infant must sue per Guardianum and the other per Attornatum or whether it is not well enough if both sue per Attornat Offley spake to it and cited 2 Cro. 541. Pasch 11 Car. 288. Powell's case Styles 318. 2 Cro. 577. 1 Inst 157. Dyer 338. Morton I am of Opinion that he may Sue by Attorney as Executor though if he be Defendant he must appear by Guardian Rainsford I think it is well enough and I am led to think so by the multitude of Authorities in the point And I think the case stronger when Infants joyn in Actions with persons of full age He Sues here in auter droit and I have not heard of any Authority against it Twisden concurred with the rest and so Iudgment was given Moreclack Carleton UPon a Writ of Error out of the Court of Common Pleas one Error assigned was that upon a relicta verificatione a misericordia was entred whereas it ought to have been a capiatur Twisden The Common-Pleas ought to certifie us what the practice of their Court is Monday the Secondary said it was always a Capiatur It s true in 9 Edw. 4. it is said that he shall but be amerced because he hath spared the Iury their pains and 34 H. 8. is accordingly but say they in the Common Pleas a Capiatur must be entred because dedicit factum suum So they said they would discourse with the Iudges of the Common Pleas concerning it The King versus Holmes MOved to quash an Indictment of Forcible Entry into a Messuage passage or way for that a passage or way is no Land nor Tenement but an Easement and then it is not certain whether it were a passage over Land or Water Yelv. 169. the word passagium is taken for a passage over Water Twisd You need not labour about that of the passage we shall quash it as to that but what say you to the Messunge Jones It is naught in the whole for it is but by way of recital with a quod cum he was possessed c. Et sic possessionatus c. but that Twisden said was well enough Jones Then he saith that he was possessed de quodam Termino and doth not say annorum Twisden That 's naught And the Indictment was quash'd An Action was brought against the Hundred of Stoak upon the Statute of Hue and Cry and at the Trial some House-keepers appeared as Witnesses that lived within the Hundred who being examined said they were Poor and paid no Taxes nor Parish Duties and the question was whether they were good Witnesses or not Twisden Alms-people and Servants are good Witnesses but these are neither Then he went down from the Bench to the Iudges of the Common-Pleas to know their Opinions and at his return said That Iudge Wyld was confident that they ought not to be sworn and that Iudge Tyrrell doubted at first but afterwards was of the same Opinion their reason was because when the money recovered against the Hundred should come to be levied they might be worth something Hoskins versus Robins Hill 23 Car. 2. Rot. 233. IN this case these points were spoke to in Arrest of Iudgment viz. 1. Whether a Custom to have a several Pasture excluding the Lord were a good Custom or not It was said that a prescription to have Common so was void in Law and if so then a prescription to have sole Pasture which is to have the Grass by the mouth of the Cattle is no other then Common appendant Daniel's case 1 Cro. so that Common and Pasturage is one and the same thing They say that it is against the nature of Common for the very word Common supposeth that the Lord may feed I answer if that were the reason then a man could not by Law claim Common for half a year excluding the Lord which may be done by Law But the true reason is that if that were allowed then the whole profits of the Land might be claimed by prescription and so the whole Land be prescribed for The Lord may grant to his Tenants to have Common excluding himself but such a Common is not good by prescription The second point was whether or no the prescription here not being for Beasts levant couchant were good or not for that a difference was made betwixt Common in grosse and common appendant viz. That a man may prescribe for Common in grosse without those words but not for Common appendant 2 Cro. 256. 1 Brownl 35. Noy 145. 15 Edw. 4. fol. 28. 32. Rolls tit Common 388. Fitz. tit Prescription 51. a third point was whether or no these things are not help'd by a Verdict As to that it was alledged that they are defects in the Title appearing on Record and that a Verdict doth not help them Saunders contra In case of a Common such a prescription is not good because it is a contradiction but here we claim solam Pasturam Now what may be good at this day by grant may be claimed by prescription As to the Exception that we ought to have prescribed for Cattle levant couchant its true if one doth claim Common for Cattle levant couchant is the measure for the Common unless it be for so many Cattle in number but here we claim the whole Herbage which perhaps the Cattle levant couchant will not eat up Hales Notwithstanding this prescription for the sole Pasture yet the Soil is the Lords and he has Mynes Trees Bushes c. and he may dig for Turfes And such a grant viz. of the sole Pasturage would be good at this day 18 Edw. 3. though a grant by the Lord that he will not improve would be a void grant at this day Twisden My Lord Coke is express in the point A man cannot prescribe for sole Common but may prescribe for sole Pasture And there is no Authority against him And for levant couchant it was adjudged in Stoneby Muckleby's case that after a Verdict it was help'd And Iudgment was given accordingly Anonymus AN Action of
Court and the Sheriff let him go into the Country it is an escape And though he be not bound to bring him the direct way because he may be rescued yet he ought not to carry him round about a great way for the accommodation of the party if he doth it is an Escape but by this Evidence you let him go back threescore miles to which there can be no answer An Habeas Corpus retornable immediate is not fixt to an hour but to a convenient time They answered that he went back to carry back some Writings Counsel Here is an escape of one of the parties who dies before the Action brought whereby the whole charge is survived to the other before the Action brought and whether this shall purge the Escape is the question or how far it shall purge it Wild. Before you brought your Action the Debt is gone as to the Escape Hales We are made the Engines of doing all the mischief if this shall go unpunished being by colour of an Habeas Corpus So the Iury brought in a Verdict for the Plaintiff who declared in Debt for 6200 l. Greene versus Proude A Trial at Bar The question whether a Will or no Will The Plaintiff produced a Deed indented made between two parties the Man and his Son and the Father did agree to give the Son so much and the Son did agree to pay such and such Debts and Sums of money And there were some particular expressions resembling the form of a Will as that he was sick of body and did give all his Goods and Chattels c. but the Writing was both Sealed and delivered as a Deed And they gave evidence that he intended it for his last Will which the Court said was a good proof of his Will Then the Defendant setting up an Entail the Plaintiff exhibited an Exemplification of a Recovery in the Marquess of Winchesters Court in ancient demesne The other side objected that they did not prove it a true Copy But because it was ancient the Court said they should not be so strict upon the Evidence of it for the other side said the Court Rolls were burned in Baseing-house in the time of the Wars Hales I remember a case where one had gotten a presentation to the Parsonage of Gosnall in Lincoln-shire and brought a Quare Impedit and the Defendant pleaded an Appropriation there was no Licence of Appropriation produced but because it was ancient the Court would intend it Then they objected that they ought to prove seisin in the Tenant to the Praecipe Hales It being an ancient Recovery we will not put them to prove that He said the Mayor of Bristol had offered in evidence an Exemplification of a Recovery under the Town Seal of Houses in Bristol the Records being burned and that Exemplification was allowed for Evidence Hales If Tenant in Tail accept a Fine come ceo c. this doth not not alter his Estate If Tenant for life accept of a Fine Sur conusance c. he doth forfeit his Estate but it doth not alter the Estate for life Objection The Recovery is of Land in Kingscleare whereas the Land claimed is in a particular Ville called And the Vills are several and there are distinct Courts in every Ville Hales There are several Tythings of Dale Sale and Downe there is a Tythingman in every particular place but the Constable of Dale goes through all these may go for several Vills or one Vill There may be a Mannor that hath several little Mannors within it wherein are held several Courts for the ease of the Tenants but all but one Mannor And a Writ of Right close is Quod plenam rectam c. and runs to the Bayliff of the Mannor and may extend to the Precinct of the whole Mannor as the Mannor of Barton hath several little Mannors under it yet all within the Mannor Hales Where there is a Writ of Right close in ancient demesne it is not like a demand to a Sheriff here where he hath his direction for so many Acres Maynard But then he must demand it in the particular Ville where it is Hales If a Praecipe quod reddat be of Land in a Parish where it must be in a Ville there may be exception to the Writ but if he recovers it is good for now the time is past And so where it is infra manerium if he recovers it is good Browne versus AN Action brought in Canterbury Town The Defendant removes it by Habeas Corpus Then the Plaintiff declares here It was moved that it might be tried in some other County because the Iudges came there so seldom Court Let them shew cause why they should not consent and if they will plead Nil debet the Plaintiff will be willing to let them give any thing in Evidence And Simpson said it was the Opinion of all the Iudges that upon Nil debet pleaded Entry and Suspension may be given in Evidence which the Court did not deny So the Court ordered the other side to shew cause why they should not consent One Hillyard an Attorney sued for his Fees in this Court in the Court at Bristol But the Court said an Attorney ought not to wave this Court A motion was made by Sir William Jones for the Lord Mayor Starling See Bushel's case reported in Vaughan's Reports and the Recorder Howell One Bushell brought an Action against them for False Imprisonment And because the plea was long he prayed he might have time to plead Hales I speak my mind plainly that an Action will not lye for a Certiorari and an Habeas Corpus whereby the body and proceédings are removed hither are in the nature of a Writ of Error And in case of an erroneous Iudgmene given by a Iudge which is reverst by a Writ of Error shall the party have an Action of False Imprisonment against the Iudge No nor against the Officer neither The Habeas Corpus and Writ of Error though it doth make void the Iudgment it doth not make the awarding of the Process void to that purpose and the matter was done in a course of Iustice They will have but a cold business of it An Habeas Corpus and Certiorari is a Writ of right the highest Writ the party can bring So day was given to shew cause Lord Tenham versus Mullins A Trial at Bar about a fraudulent Deed. Hales There are thrée things to be considered Fraud Consideration and Bona fide Now the Bona fide is opposite to Fraud I remember a case in Twine's case If the Son be dissolute and the Father with advice of Friends doth settle things so that he shall not spend all though here be not a consideration of money yet it is no fraudulent Deed and a Deed may be voluntary and yet not fraudulent otherwise most of the Settlements in England would be avoided and so said Twisden Blackburne versus Graves TRover for 100 Loads of Wood Not-guilty
Man brings an Action of Debt against B. Sheriff of the County Palatine of Lancaster and sues him to an Outlawry upon mean Process and has a Capias directed to the Chancery of the County Palatine who makes a Precept to the Coroners of the County being six in all to take his body and have him before the Kings Iustices of the Court of Common-Pleas at Westminster such a day One of the Coroners being in sight of the Defendant and having a fair opportunity to Arrest him doth it not but they all return non est inventus though he were easie to be found and might have been taken every day Hereupon the Plaintiff brings an Action against the Coroners and lays his Action in Middlesex and has a Verdict for 100 l. Serj. Baldwin moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Action ought to have been brought in Lancaster he agreed to the cases put in Bulwer's case 7 Rep. where the cause of Action arises equally in two Counties but here all that the Coroners do subsists and determines in the County Palatine of Lancaster for they make a Return to the Chancery of the County Palatine only and it is he that makes the Return to the Court He insisted upon Dyer 38 39 40. Husse Gibbs 2. He said this Action is grounded upon two wrongs one the not arresting him when he was in sight the other for returning non est inventus when he might easily have been taken now for the wrong of one all are charged and entire damages given He said two Sheriffs make but one Officer but the case of Coroners is different each of them is responsible for himself only and not for his Companion Serjeant Turner Pemberton contra They said the Action was well brought in Middlesex because the Plaintiffs damage arose here viz. by not having the body here at the day They cited Bulwer's case Dyer 159. b. the Chancery returns to the Court the same answer that the Coroners return to him so that their false Return is the cause of prejudice that accrues to the Plaintiff here The ground of this Action is the return of non est inventus which is the act of them all that one of them saw him and might have arrested him and that the Defendant was daily to be found c. are but mentioned as arguments to prove the false Return And they conceived an Action would not lie against one Coroner no more then against one Sheriff in London York Norwich c. But to the first exception taken by Baldwin they said admitting the Action laid in another County then where it ought yet after Verdict it is aided by the Statute of 16 17 Car. 2. if the Ven. come from any place of the County where the Action is laid it is not said in any place of the County where the cause of Action ariseth now this Action is laid in Middlesex and so the Trial by a Middlesex Iury good let the cause of Action arise where it will Cur̄ That Statute doth not help your case for it is to be intended when the Action is laid in the proper County where it ought to be laid which the word proper County implies But they inclined to give Iudgment for the Plaintiff upon the reasons given by Turner Pemberton Adjornatur Bird Kirke IT was resolved in this case by the whole Court 1. That if there be Tenant for life the Remainder for life of a Copy-hold and the Remainder-man for life enter upon the Tenant for life in possession and make a surrender that nothing at all passeth hereby for by his entry he is a Disseisor and has no customary Estate in him whereof to make a surrender 2. That when Tenant for life of a Copy-hold suffers a Recovery as Tenant in Fee that this is no forfeiture of his Estate for the Free-hold not being concern'd and it being in a Court-Baron where there is no Estoppell and the Lord that is to take advantage of it if it be a forfeiture being party to it it is not to be resembled to the forfeiture of a Free-Tenant that Customary Estates have not such accidental qualities as Estates at Common Law have unless by special Custom 3. That if it were a forfeiture of this and all other forfeitures committed by Copy-holders the Lord only and not any of those in Remainder ought to take advantage And they gave Iudgment accordingly North Chief Justice said that where it is said in King Lord's case in Cr. Car. that when Tenant for life of a Copy-hold surrenders c. that no use is left in him but whosoever is afterward admitted comes in under the Lord that that is to be understood of Copy-holds in such Mannors where the Custom warrants only Customary Estates for life and is not applicable to Copy-holds granted for life with a Remainder in Fee Anonymus A Writ of Annuity was brought upon a Prescription against the Rector of the Parish Church of St. Peter in c. the Defendant pleads that the Church is overflown with the Sea c. the Plaintiff demurs Serjeant Nudigate pro Querente The Declaration is good for a Writ of Annuity lies upon a prescription against a Parson but not against an heir F. N. B. 152. Rastall 32. the plea of the Church being drowned is not good at best it is no more then if he had said that part of the Glebe was drowned it is not the building of the Church nor the consecrated ground in respect whereof the Parson is charged but the profits of the Tythes and the Glebe Though the Church be down one may be presented to the Rectory 21 H. 7. 1. 10. H. 7. 13. 16 H. 7. 9. Luttrel's case 4 Rep. Wilmote contra The Parson is charged as Parson of the Church of St. Peter we plead in effect that there is no such Church and he confesseth it 21 Ed. 4. 83. Br. Annuity 39. 21 Ed. 4. 20. 11 H. 4. 49. we plead that the Church is submersa obruta c. which is as much a dissolution of the Rectory as the death of all the Monks is a dissolution of an Abbathie It may be objected that the Defendant has admitted himself Rector by pleading to it but I answer 1. An Estoppel is not taken notice of unless relyed on in pleading 2. The Plaintiff by his demurrer has confessed the Fact of our plea. By which mean the matter is set at large though we were estopped The Court was clearly of opinion for the Plaintiff The Church is the Cure of Souls and the right of Tythes If the material Fabrick of the Parish-Church be down another may be built and ought to be Judicium pro Quer ' nisi c. Term. Trin. 27 Car. II. in Communi Banco Vaughton versus Atwood alios TRespass for taking away some Flesh-meat from the Plaintiff being a Butcher The Defendant justifies by virtue of a Custom of the Mannor of c. that the Homage used
also for that they sued the Plaintiff in another Court knowing that he was an Attorney of the Common-Pleas and priviledged there Per tot ' Cur ' there is no cause of Action For put the case as strong as you will suppose a man be retained as an Attorney to sue for a debt which he knows to be released and that himself were a witness to the Release yet the Court held that the Action would not lye for that what he does is only as Servant to another and in the way of his Calling and Profession And for suing an Attorney in an inferiour Court that they said was no cause of Action for who knows whether he will insist upon his priviledge or not and if he does he may plead it and have it allowed Fits al. versus Freestone IN an Action grounded upon a promise in Law payment before the Action brought is allowed to be given in Evidence upon non Assumpsit But where the Action is grounded upon a special promise there payment or any other legal discharge must be pleaded Bringloe versus Morrice IN Trespass for immoderately riding the Plaintiffs Mare the Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff lent to him the said Mare licentiam dedit eidem aequitare upon the said Mare and that by virtue of this Licence the Defendant and his Servant alternatim had rid upon the Mare The Plaintiff demurs Serj. Skipwith pro Quer ' The Licence is personal and incommunicable as 12 H. 7. 25. 13 H. 7. 13. the Dutchess of Norfolk's case 18 Ed. 4. 14. Serj. Nudigate contra This Licence is given by the party and not created by Law wherefore no Trespass lyeth 8 Rep. 146 147. per Cur ' the Licence is annexed to the person and cannot be communicated to another for this riding is matter of pleasure North took a difference where a certain time is limited for the Loan of the Horse and where not In the first case the party to whom the Horse is lent hath an interest in the Horse during that time and in that case his Servant may ride but in the other case not A difference was taken betwixt hiring a Horse to go to York and borrowing a Horse in the first place the party may set his Servant up in the second not Term. Pasch 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco Anonymus A Man upon marriage Covenants with his Wives relations to let her make a Will of such and such Goods she made a Will accordingly by her husbands consent and dyed After her death her Will being brought to the Prerogative Court to be proved a Prohibition was prayed by the Husband upon this suggestion that the Testatrix was foemina viro cooperta and so disabled by the Law to make a Will Cur ' Let a Prohibition go Nisi causa c. North. When a question ariseth concerning the Iurisdiction of the Spiritual Court as whether they ought to have the Probate of such a Will whether such a disposition of a personal Estate be a Will or not whether such a Will ought to be proved before a peculiar or before the Ordinary whether by the Archbishop of one Province or another or both and what shall be bona notabilia in these and the like cases the Common Law retains the Iurisdiction of determining there is no question but that here is a good surmise for a Prohibition to wit that the woman was a person disabled by the Law to make a Will the Husband may by Covenant depart with his right and suffer his Wife to make a Will but whether he hath done so here or not shall be determined by the Law we will not leave it to their decision it is too great an invasion upon the right of the Husband In this case the Spiritual Court has no Iurisdiction at all they have the Probate of Wills but a Feme-covert cannot make a Will If she disposeth of any thing by her Husbands consent the property of what she so disposeth passeth from him to her Legatee and it is the gift of the husband If the Goods were given into anothers hands in trust for the wife still her Will is but a Declaration of the trust and not a Will properly so called But of things in Action and things that a Feme-Covert hath as Executrix she may make a Will by her Husbands consent and such a Will being properly a Will in Law ought to be proved in the Spiritual Court. In the case in question a Prohibition was granted against the Hambrough Company THe Plaintiff brought an Action of Debt in London against the Hambrough-Company who not appearing upon Summons and a Nihil being returned against them an Attachment was granted to attach Debts owing to the Company in the hands of 14 several persons by Certiorari the cause was removed into this Court and whether a Procedendo should be granted or not was the question Serjeant Goodfellow Baldwin and Barrell argued that a debt owing to a Corporation is not attachable Serjeant Maynard Scroggs contra Cur ' We are not Iudges of the Customs of London nor do we take upon us to determine whether a debt owing to a Corporation be within the Custom of forrein Attachment or not This we judge and agree in that it is not unreasonable that a Corporation's debts should be attached If we had judged the Custom unreasonable we could and would have retained the cause For we can over-rule a Custom though it be one of the Customs of London that are confirmed by Act of Parliament if it be against natural reason But because in this Custom we find no such thing we will return the cause Let them proceed according to the Custom at their peril If there be no such Custom they that are aggrieved may take their remedy at Law We do not dread the consequences of it It does but tend to the advancement of Iustice and accordingly a Procedendo was granted per North Chief Justice Wyndham Ellis Atkyns aberat Anonymus PEr Cur ' if a man is indicted upon the Statute of Recusancy Conformity is a good plea but not if an Action of Debt be brought Parten Baseden's Case PArten brought an Action of Debt in this Court against the Testator of Baseden the now Defendant aâ—d had Iudgment After whose death there was a devastavit returned against the Defendant Baseden his Executor he appeared to it and pleaded and a special Verdict was found to this effect viz. that the Defendant Baseden was made Executor by the Will and dwelt in the same house in which the Testator lived and died and that before Probate of the Will he possest himself of the Goods of the Testator prized them inventoried them and sold part of them and paid a Debt and converted the value of the residue to his own use that afterwards before the Ordinary he refused and that upon his refusal administration was committed to the Widow of the deceased And the question was whether or no the
such power nay if he have Children they must be living at his death Further by these Provisoes if the Contingencies do happen he hath but a power to declare the Vses he hath no Interest in him at all Litt. Sect. 463. It is one thing to have a power or possibility of limiting an Interest another to have an Interest vested 7 Rep. 11. Moor's Reports 366. about the delivery of a Ring where they hold that if it had been to have been done with his own hand it had not been forfeited The case of Sir Edward Clere is different from ours for if a man make a feoffment to the use of his last Will or to the use of such persons as shall be appointed by his last Will in this case he remains a perfect owner of the Land But if a man makes a Conveyance with power to make Leases or to make an Estate to pay Debts he hath here no Interest but a naked power The Duke of Norfolk's case is full in the point A Conveyance to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Son in Tail with power to revoke under Hand and Seal adjudged not forfeited and yet he had a power to declare his mind as in our case Pagett's case Moor 193 194. Keeling If this way be taken a man may commit Treason pretty cheaply Twisden Whoever hath a power of Revocation hath a power of Limitation The reason is because else the feoffées would be seized to their own Vse Sir William Shelly's case in Latch Twisden There is no difference betwixt the Duke of Norfolk's case and this only here it is under his hand writing and there under his proper hand writing Afterward Term. Pasch 23 Car. 2. 1671. the Court delivered their Opinions Hales being then Chief Iustice Morton I conceive the Iudgment in the Common-Pleas is well given As for the first point whether this Conveyance made by Sir Simon Mayn be fraudulent or not the Counsel themselves have declined it and therefore I shall say nothing to it For the second I conceive no larger Interest is forfeited then during the Life of the Father If it be objected that the Father had by this Proviso jus disponendi I answer it is true he had a power if he had been minded so to do but it was not his mind and Will Now animus hominis est ipse homo but he must not only be minded so to do but he must declare his pleasure Hobart saith if a man will create a power to himself and impose a Condition or Qualification for the Execution of it it must be observed Now here is a personal and individual power seated in the heart of a man And it seems to me a stronger case then that of the Duke of Norfolk put in Englefield's case where yet the Condition was not given to the King by the Statute of Hen. 8. There was a later case adjudged in Latch betwéen Warner and Hynde a case that walked through all the Courts in Westminster-hall there by reason of the ipso declarante it could not be forfeited Rainsford I hold it is not forfeited My reason is because the Proviso is at an end and determined for when he dyed and made no Will there 's an end of the Proviso The altering of the old Trust is to be done by Sir Simon Mayn and it is inseparable from his person nothing can be more inseparable then a mans Will Moor 193. Twisd I am of the same Opinion Hales was of the same Opinion that nothing was forfeited but during Sir Simon 's life The Proviso he said did not create a Trust but potestatem disponendi which is not a Trust He said he did not understand the difference betwéen the Duke of Norfolk's case and this Accordingly the Iudgment was affirm'd In a cause wherein one Aston was Attorney Keeling said That a man may discontinue his Action here before an Action brought in the Common-Pleas But if he do begin there and then they plead another Action depending here and then they discontinue I take it the Attorney ought to be committed for this practice Twisden When I was at the Bar Error was brought and Infancy assigned when the Man was thirty years old and the Attorney was threatned to be turned out of the Roll. Serjeant Newdigate moved for a Certiorari to remove an Indictment hither from Bedford against several Frenchmen for Robbery Keeling Will it remove the Recognisances there to appear Twisden I never knew such a motion made by any but the King's Attorney or Solicitor Rainsford There is no Indictment yet before a Iudge of Assise Keeling You may have a Certiorari but it must not be delivered till the Indictment be found and then the Iudge hath the Prosecutors there and may bind them over hither and so the Trial may be here Keel A Iury was never ordered to a view before their appearance unless in an Assise Twisd Neither shall you have it here but by consent Nosworthy versus Wyldeman THe Plaintiff declares in an Indeb Assumpsit that the Defendant was endebted to him in 50 l. for so much money received of the Plaintiff by one Thomas Buckner by the appointment and to the use of the Defendant After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff could not have an Action for money received by the Defendant to the use of the Defendant But because it might be money lent which the Defendant received to his own use though he was to make good the value to the Plaintiff the Court will presume after a Verdict that it appeared so to the Iury at the Trial. For where a Declaration will bear two constructions and one will make it good and the other bad the Court after a Verdict will take it in the better sense And accordingly the Plaintiff had Iudgment Willams versus Lee. AN Action of Account It was prayed that the Court would give further day for giving the Account the matter being referred to Auditors Twisden The Auditors themselves must give further day Keeling The Auditors are Iudges whether there be a voluntary delay or not If they find the parties remiss and negligent they must certifie to the Court that they will not account Roberts Mariott MOved to discontinue an Action of Debt upon a Bond. Keeling We will not favour Conditions Ruled that the other side should shew cause why they should not discontinue Buckly versus Turner ACtion upon the case upon a Promise The case was that Edward Turner Brother to the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff for a Quarters Rent and the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff mitteret prosequi praedictum Edwardum Turner so the words are in the Declaration promised to pay the money After a Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that here is not any consideration for there is no loss to the Plaintiff in sending to prosecute c. nor any benefit but
suffered him to go at large whither he would and at the day of Return he returned that he had his body ready Jones They have demurred to the Declaration which I conceive to be a good Declaration For take the case that there went a Latitat to the Sheriff and the Sheriff took the person upon it and let him go at large no body will deny but that an Action of Escape will lye against him and when he makes such a false Return as here that he has the body ready why will not an Action lie for a false Return and this is no new case but hath béen adjudged Moor. plac 596. 3 Cro. 460. ibid. 624. it is at the Plaintiffs Election to follow the Sheriff with Amercements or to bring his Action for the false Return And when this Action has been brought formerly they were forced to plead the Statute none ever demurred generally Twisden I remember a case in 21 Car. 1. Rot. 616. betwéen Franklyn Andrews where an Action upon the Case was brought against a Sheriff for such a false Return he pleaded the Statute and they held in that case that the Sheriff could not Return any thing else but Cepi corpus And old Hodson that sate here remembred the case of Langton Gardiner reported in 3 Cro. and said the Court did amerce the Sheriff for a bad Return but the Iudgment was given in that case for the Plaintiff because there was a Traverse aliter vel alio modo which could not be unless a false Return had been confessed and the Court ordered Iudgment to be entred for the Plaintiff for that cause In the case of Franklyn the Court held that upon Issue Not-guilty the Statute might be given in Evidence but upon a Demurrer you ought to plead the Statute and the general Demurrer cannot be help'd in this case unless you will say that it is a general Law Whelpdale's case is that the Statute must be pleaded because it is a particular Law but it concerns Extortion in all Sheriffs and the Statute of 13 Eliz. that concerns all Parsons touching Non-residency is held to be a general Law and it is not to be stirr'd now but if the point were to be adjudged again perhaps we might be of another Opinion Keeling They have relyed here upon the false Return and the general Demurrer I take to be well enough Morton Rainsford accorded wherefore Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Lake versus King THe Plaintiff brought an Action upon the Case for publishing a Libell in which he was defamed c. the publication was in delivering several Printed Papers wherein the Plaintiff was slandered to several Members of a Committée of the House of Commons Jones It is true if a man make a complaint in a Legal way no Action lyeth against him for taking that course if it be in a competent Court But that that we say is not lawful in this case is his causing the matter to be Printed and Published agreeable to this case are the common cases of Letters if a man will write a scandalous Letter and deliver it to the party himself this is no Slander But if he acquaints a third person with it an Action will lie So here since he will publish this matter by Printing it or if he had but written it it might have been Actionable for the Members ought not to be prepossessed King versus Standish AN Action upon the Statute of Praemunire for impeaching in the Chancery a Iudgment given in the Kings-Bench The Defendant demurred Bigland for the Defendant The question is whether the Court of Chancery be meant within the Statute of 27 Ed. 3. 3. This question has béen controverted formerly but has not béen stirr'd within these 40 years last past It concerns the Chancery as it is a Court of Equity Now the Statute cannot be applyed to the Chancery as such for it was not a Court of Equity at that time and if so then must the Statute be applyed to other Courts where the gravamen then was Mr. Lambert in his Iurisdiction of Courts says of this Court that the King did at first determine Causes in Equity in person and that about 20 Ed. 3 the King going beyond Sea delegated this power to the Chancellor And then he says several Statutes were made to enlarge the Iurisdiction of this Court as 17 Rich. 2. cap. 6. c. But the Chancellor took not upon him ex Officio to determine matters in Equity till Edward the Fourth's time For till then it was done by the King in person or he delegated whom he pleased So that the Gravamen of that Statute could not be in the Chancery 2. It is not possible that the King can be disinherited in his own Courts and therefore the Statute must be understood of Courts that stand in opposition to the Kings Courts and only forreign Courts But this Court is held by the Kings Seal and the Iudgments in it are according to the Kings Conscience Thirdly It is said in the Statute that the Offenders shall have a day given them to appear before the King and his Council or in his Chancery c. and it is strange that the Chancery should give the remedy if that were one of the Courts wherein the Offence were incurred My fourth reason is from the penalty the penalty is very rare and great for they must be put out of the Kings Protection their Lands forfeited and their bodies imprison'd at the Kings pleasure The penalty is fitted well for those that draw the Kings Subjects out of the Kings Iurisdiction but so great a penalty to be inflicted for suing in the Kings Courts is not so reasonable If a man sue in the Ecclesiastical Court for a matter Temporal shall he incur a Premunire An Action upon the Case may lye when a man is mistaken in the Court in which he ought to sue but to make it a Praemunire seems not so reasonable The Vsurpations of the Bishop of Rome were the cause of the making of this Statute and all other Statutes of Praemunire 28 Ed. 3. cap. 1. 16 H. 6. cap. 5. the complaint was all along of the Bishop of Rome's Vsurpations but not a word of the Chancery Sir John Davies in his case of Praemunire tells us that all the Statutes were made upon this occasion Of all the Attainders of Praemunire there never was one for suing in the Chancery The great Objection is from these words in the Statute or which do sue in any other Court now say they this last disjunctive must be applyed to this Court and not to the Court or Courts mentioned before But I answer there were other Ecclesisiastical Courts within this Realm besides that that was a standing Court and had a constant dependance upon the Pope here and they were aimed at by this disjunctive Those Courts derived their Iurisdiction from the Court of Rome and not from the King There is an Authority in the point in
best Beast upon the Tenancy it must come on the other side to shew that it was not the Tenants Beast Keel The Cattel of a Stranger cannot be distrained unless they were levant couchant but it must come on the other side to show that they were not so So Judic pro Quer ' Wayman Smith AProhibition was prayed to the Court of Bristol upon this suggestion viz. That the cause of Action did not arise within the Iurisdiction of the Court Winnington There was a case here between Smith Bond Hill 17 Car. 2. Rot. 501. a Prohibition to Marleborough the suggestion grounded on Westm 1. cap. 34. granted And there needs not a Plea in the Spiritual Court to the Iurisdiction for that he cited F. N. B. 49. But he said he had an Affidavit that the cause of Action did arise out of their Iurisdiction Twisden I doubt you must plead to the Iurisdiction of the Court I remember a case here wherein it was held so and that if they will not allow it then you must have a Prohibition Winnington Fitzherbert is full Ruled that the other side shall shew cause why a Prohibition should not go and things to stay Humlock Blacklow DEbt upon a Bond for performance of Covenants in Articles of agreement The Plaintiff covenanted with the Defendant to assign over his Trade to him and that he should not endeavour to take away any of his Customers and in consideration of the performance of these Covenants the Defendant did Covenant to pay the Plaintiff 60 l. per annum during his life Saunders The words in consideratione performationis make it a Condition precedent which must be averred 3 Leon. 219. and those Covenants must be actually performed Twisden How long must he stay then till he can be entitled to his Annuity as long as he lives for this Covenant may be broken at any time That 's an Exposition that corrupts the Text. Judic nisi c. It was moved by one Hunt that the Venue might be changed in an Action of Indebitat Assumpsit brought by Mr. Wingfield Jones I conceive it ought not to be changed being in the case of a Counsellor at Law by reason of his attendance at this Court. Twisd In Mr. Bacon's case of Grays-Inn they refused to change the Venue in the like case So not granted An Indictment against one Morris in Denbigh-shire for Murther was removed into the Kings Bench by Certiorari to prevent the Prisoners being acquitted at the Grand-Sessions and the Court directed to have an Indictment found against him in the next English County viz. at Shrewsbury Vide infra Taylor Rouse Church-wardens of Downham versus their Predecessors THe Action was to make them Account for a Bell. They plead that they delivered it to a Bell-founder to mend and that it is yet in his hands The Plaintiff demurs the cause of his Demurrer was that this was no good Plea in Bar of the Account though it might be a good Plea before Auditors 1 Roll 121. Pemberton I conceive it is a good Plea for wherever the matter or cause of the Account is taken off the Plea is good in Bar. But he urged that the Action was brought for taking away bona Ecclesiae and not bona Parochianorum as it ought to have been Court The Property is not well laid So ordered to mend all and plead de novo Term. Mich. 22 Car. II. 1670. in B. R. AN Inquisition was returned upon the Statute against pulling down Inclosures They took Issue as to the damages only It was moved that before the Trial for the damages there might be Iudgment given to have them set up again having been long down Twisden When you have Iudgment for the damages then one Distringas will serve for setting up the Inclosures and the damages too As in an Action where part goes by default and the other part is traversed you shall not take out Execution till that part which is traversed be tried Vpon a motion by Mr. Dolbin for an Attachment Twisden said if a man has a Suit depending in this Court and be coming to Town to prosecute or defend it here he cannot be sued elsewhere But if a man come hither as a Witness he is protected eundo redeundo Wootton Heal. AN Action of Covenant was brought upon a Warranty in a Fine a term for years being Evicted Saunders I acknowledge that an Action of Covenant does well lye in this case but the Plaintiff assigns his breach in this viz. that one Stowell habens legale jus titulum did enter upon him and evict him which perhaps he did by virtue of a title derived from the Plaintiff himself 2 Cro. 315. Kirby Hansaker Jones contra To suppose that Stowell claimed under the Plaintiff is a foreign intendment and it might as well come on the Defendants side to show it And since that case in 2 Crook the Statute of 21 Jac. and the late Act have much strengthned Verdicts Twisden The Statutes do not help when the Court cannot tell how to give Iudgment The Plaintiff ought to entitle himself to his Action and it is not enough if the Iury entitle him Jones You have waived the title here and relyed upon the Entry of the Issue only which is non intravit c. Cur. advisare vult Lassells Catterton AN Action of Covenant for further assurance the Covenant being to make such Conveyance c. as Counsel should advise they alledge for breach that they tendred such a Conveyance as was advised by Counsel viz. a Lease and Release and set it forth with all the usual Covenants Levings moved in Arrest of Iudgment I conceive they have tendred no such Conveyance as we are bound to execute for we are not obliged to Seal any Conveyance with Covenants nor with a Warranty Besides that which they have tendred has a Warranty not only against the Covenantor but one Wilson 2 Cro. 571. 1 Rolls 424. Again our Covenant is to convey all our Lands in Bomer and the Conveyance tendred is of all our Lands in the Lordship of Bomer Twisden For the last exception I think we shall intend them to be both one And I know it hath been held that if a man be bound to make any such reasonable assurance as Counsel shall advise usual Covenants may be put in for the Covenant shall be so understood But there must not be a Warranty in it though some have held that there may be a Warranty against himself but I question whether that will hold But Weston on the other side said that the Objection as to the Warranty was fatal and he would not make any defence The King versus Morris Vid. sup MR. Attorney Finch shewed cause why a Certiorari should not be granted to remove an Indictment of Murder out of Denbighshire in Wales Twisden In 2 Car. 8 Car. it was held that a Certiorari did lye into Wales Morton By 34 H. 8. the Iustices
of the great Sessions have power to try all Murthers as the Iudges here have and the Statute of 26 H. 8. for the Trial of Murthers in the next English County was made before that of the 34 H. 8. Twisden I never yet heard that the Statute of 34 H. 8. had repealed that of 26 Henr. 8. It is true the Iudges of the Grand Sessions have power but the Statute that gives it them does not exclude this Court. To be moved when the Chief Iustice should be in Court Franklyn's Case FRanklyn was brought into Court by Habeas Corpus and the Return being read it appeared that he was committed as a Preacher at Seditious Conventicles Coleman prayed he might be discharged he said this Commitment must be upon the Oxford Act for the last Act only orders a Conviction and the Act for Vniformity Commitment only after the Bishops Certificate And the Oxford Act provides that it shall be done by two Iustices of the Peace upon Oath made before them and in this Return but one Iustice of Peace is named for Sir William Palmer is mentioned as Deputy Lieutenant and you will not intend him to be a Iustice of Peace Nor does it appear that there was any Oath made before them Twisden Vpon the Statute of the 18th of the Queen that appoints that two Iustices shall make Orders for the keeping of Bastard-children whereof one to be of the Quorum I have got many of them quash'd because it was not exprest that one of them was of the Quorum Whereupon Franklyn was discharged Vpon a motion for time to plead in a great cause about Brandy Twisden said if it be in Bar you cannot demand Oyer of the Letters Patents the next Term but if it be in a Replication you may because you mention the precedent Term in the Bar but not in the Replication Yard Ford. MOved by Jones in Arrest of Iudgment an Action upon the Case was brought for keeping a Market without Warrant it being in prejudice of the Plaintiffs Market He moved that the Action would not lie because the Defendant did not keep his Market on the same day that the Plaintiff kept his which he said is implied in the case in 2 Rolls 140. Saunders contra Vpon a Writ of Ad quod dampnum they enquire of any Markets generally though not held the same day In this case though the Defendants Market be not held the same day that ours is yet it is a damage to us in forestalling our Market Twisden I have not observed that the day makes any difference If I have a Fair or Market and one will erect another to my prejudice an Action will lye and so of a Ferry It s true for one to set up a School by mine is damnum absque injuria Ordered to be moved again Pawlett moved in Trespass that the Defendant pleaded in Bar that he had paid 3 l. and made a promise to pay so much more in satisfaction and said it was a good plea and did amount to an accord with satisfaction an Action being but a Contract which this was Twisden An Accord executed is pleadable in Bar but Executory not Twisden There are two clauses in the Statute of Vsury if there be a corrupt agreement at the time of the lending of the money then the Bonds and all the Assurances are void but if the agreement be good and afterward he receives more than he ought then he forfeits the treble value Bonnefield HE was brought into Court upon a Cap. Excom and it was urged by Pawlett that he might be delivered for that his name was Bonnefield and the Cap. Excom was against one Bromfield Twisden You cannot plead that here to a Cap. Excom You have no day in Court and we cannot Bail upon this but you may bring your Action of False Imprisonment Caterall Marshall ACtion upon the Case wherein the Plaintiff declares that in consideration that he would give the Defennant a Bond of sufficient penalty to save him harmless he would c. and sets forth that he gave him a Bond with sufficient penalty but does not eppress what the penalty was This was moved in Arrest of Iudgment Jones After a Verdict it is good enough as in the case in Hob. 69. Twisd If it had been upon a Demurrer I should not have doubted but that it had been naught Rainsford Morton But the Iury have judged the penalty to be reasonable and have found the matter of fact Twisden The Iury are not Iudges what is reasonable and what unreasonable but this is after a Verdict And so the Iudgment was affirm'd the cause coming into the Kings Bench upon a Writ of Error Martin Delboe AN Action upon the Case setting forth that the Defendant was a Merchant and transmitted several Goods beyond Sea and promised the Plaintiff that if he would give him so much money he would pay him so much out of the proceed of such a parcel of Goods as he was to receive from beyond Sea The Defendant pleaded the Statute of Limitations and doth not say non assumpsit infra sex annos but that the cause of Action did not arise within six years The Plaintiff demurs because the cause is betwéen Merchants c. Sympson The plea is good Accounts within the Statute must be understood of those that remain in the nature of Accounts now this is a sum certain Jones accorded This is an Action upon the Case and an Action upon the Case betwéen Merchants is not within the exception And the Defendant has pleaded well in saying that the cause of Action did not arise within six years for the cause of Action ariseth from the time of the Ships coming into Port and the six years are to be reckoned from that time Twisden I never knew but that the word Accounts in the Statute was taken only for Actions of account An insimul computasset brought for a sum certain upon an Account stated though betweén Merchants is not within the Exception So Iudgment was given for the Defendant The King versus Leginham AN Information was exhibited against him for taking unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants Jones moved in arrest of Iudgment that an Information would not lye for such cause Marlebr cap. 4. saith that if the Lord take an unreasonable Distress he shall be amerced so that an Information will not lye And my Lord Coke upon Magna Carta says the party grieved may have his Action upon the Statute but admit an Information would lye yet it ought to have been more particular and to have named the Tenants it is not sufficient to say in general that he took unreasonable Distresses of several of his Tenants And the second part of the Information viz. that he is communis oppressor is not sufficient Rolls 79. Moor 451. Twisden It hath so been adjudged that to lay in an Information that a man is communis oppressor is not good And a Lord cannot be indicted
Reversion to his own right Heirs after which Michael dyed leaving Issue Robert his Son and Heir by a first Venter and the said Ralph by Jane his second wife after the death of Michael Robert entred and from Robert by divers Mesne Conveyances a Title was deduced to the Heir of the Plaintiff Ralph had Issue Robert the Defendant And in this special Verdict the question was If any Vse did arise to Ralph by this Indenture 23 Jan ' 21 Jac ' Hales Rainsford and Wyld against the Opinion of Twisden Michael Mitford took an Estate for life by implication and consequence and so had an Estate Tail Hales 1 said it were clear if an Estate for life had been limited to Michael and to the Heirs males of the body of Michael to be begotten on the body of his second wife that had been an Estate Tail 2 Which way soever it be the Estate is lodged in Michael during his life 3 There is a great difference between Estates to be conveyeyed by the rules of the Common Law and Estates conveyed by way of Vse for he may mould the Vse in himself in what estate he will These things being premised he said This Estate being turned by operation of Law into an Estate in Michael is as strong as if he had limited an Estate to himself for life 2 A Limitation to the Heirs of his body is in effect a Limitation to the Vse of himself for his Heirs are included in himself 3 It is perfectly according to the intention of the party which was that his eldest Son should not take but that the Issue of the second wife should take His intent appears to be 1 Object that it should take effect as a future use When a man limits a Vse to commence in futuro Respons and there is such a descendible quality left in him that his Heirs may take in the mean time there it shall operate solely by way of future Vse as if a man Covenant to stand seized to the use of J. S. after the expiration of 40 years or after the death of J. D. there no present alteration of the Estate is made but it is only a future use because the Father or the Ancestor had such an Interest left in him which might descend to his Heir viz. during the years or during the life of J. D. But when no Estate may by reason of the Limitation descend to the Heir until the Contingency happen there the Estate of the Covenantor is moulded to an Estate for life This would be to create an Estate by implication 2 Object We are not here to create an Estate Respons but only to qualifie an Estate which was in the Ancestor before That the old Fee-simple shall be left in him 3 Object Yet the Covenantor had qualified this Estate Respons and converted it into an Estate Tail viz. part of the old Estate That the intention of the parties appears that it should operate by way of future use 4 Object for that of other Lands he covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Heirs of his body It is not the intention of the party that shall comptroll the operation of Law Respons and to the case 1 Inst 22. though it be objected that it was not necessary at the Law to raise an Estate for life by implication yet my Lord Coke hath taken notice what he had said in the case of Parnell and Fenn Roll Rep. 240. if a man make a Feoffment to the use of the Heirs of his body that is an Estate for life in the Feoffor and in Englefields case as it is reported in Moore 303. it is agreed that if a man Covenant to stand seised to an use to commence after his death that the Covenantor thereby is become seised for life As to the second point Twisden Rainsford and Wyld held that no future use would arise to Ralph because he is not heir at Common Law and none can purchase by the name of heir unless he be heir at Common Law But Hales was against them in this point and he held that it Ralph could not take by descent yet he might well take by purchase 1 Because before the St ' de Donis a limitation might be made to this heir and so he was a special heir at Common Law 2 It is apparent that he had taken notice that he had an heir at the Common Law Litt. Sect. 35. 1 Inst 22. So his intent is evident that the heir at the Common Law should not take But on the first point Iudgment was given for the Defendant Term. Mich. 25 Car. II. in Communi Banco Anonymus IF a man be lyable to pay a yearly sum as Treasurer to a Church or the like to a Sub-treasurer or any other and dies the money being in arrear an Action of Assumpsit cannot be maintained against his Executors for these arrears For although according to the resolution in Slade's case 4 Report which Vaughan Chief Iustice said was a strange resolution an Assumpsit or an Action of Debt is maintainable upon a Contract at the parties Election yet where there is no Contract nor any personal privity as in this case there is not an Assumpsit will not lye And in an Action of Debt for these Arrears the Plaintiff must aver that there is so much money in the Treasury as he demands and in this case of an Action against Executors that there was so much at the time of the Testators death c. for the money is due from him as Treasurer and not to be paid out of his own Estate As in an Action against the Kings Receiver the Plaintiff must set forth that he has so much money of the Kings in his Coffers Magdalen Colledge Case INdebitat ' Assumpsit against the President and Scholars of Magdalen Colledge in Oxford for thréescore pounds due for Butter and Cheese sold to the Colledge The Chancellor of the Vniversity demanded Conisance by virtue of Charters of Priviledges granted to the Vniversity by the Kings Progenitors and confirm'd by Act of Parliament whereby amongst other things power is given them to hold plea in personal Actions wherein Scholars or other priviledged persons are concerned and concludes with an express demand of Conisance in this particular cause Baldw. Their priviledge extends not to this case for a Corporation is Defendant and their Charters mention priviledged persons only Their Charters are in derogation of the Common Law and must be taken strictly They make this demand upon Charters confirm'd by Act of Parliament and they have a Charter granted by King Henry 8. which is confirm'd by an Act in the Queens time but the Charter of 11 Car. 1. which is the only Charter that mentions Corporations is not confirm'd by any Act of Parliament and consequently is not material as to this demand For a demand of Conisance is stricti Juris But admitting it material the Kings Patent
tried at Common Law though the Subjectum circa quod be Spiritual 2 Rolls 285. placito 45. 2 Rolls 283. Wadworth Andrewes Shall a six-Clark prefer a Bill in Equity for his Fees But a Prohibition was granted quoad c. Glever versus Hynde alios GLever brought an Action of Trespass of Assault and Battery against Elizabeth Hynde and six others for that they at York-Castle in the County of York him the said Plaintiff with force and arms did Assault beat and evil entreat to his damage of 100 l. The Defendants plead to the Vi armis not-guilty to the Assault beating and evil entreating they say that at such a place in the County of Lancaster one _____ Jackson a Curate was performing the Rites and Funeral obsequies according to the usage of the Church of England over the body of _____ there lying dead and ready to be buried and that then and there the Plaintiff did maliciously disturb him that they the Defendants required him to desist and because he would not that they to remove him and for the preventing of further disturbance molliter ei manus imposuerunt c. quae est eadem transgressio absque hoc that they were guilty of any Assault c. within the County of York or any where else extra Comitatum Lancastriae The Plaintiff demurs Turner pro Querente The Defendants do not show that they had any Authority to lay hands on the Plaintiff as that they were Constables Church-wardens or any Officers nor do they justifie by the Authority of any that were If they had pleaded that they laid hands on him to carry him before a Iustice of Peace perhaps it might have alter'd the case The Plaintiff here if he be faulty is lyable to Ecclesiastical Censure and the Statute of Ph. Ma. ann 1. cap. 3. provides a remedy in such cases Jones contra If the Statute of Ph. Ma. did extend to this case yet it does not restrain other ways that the Law allows to punish the Plaintiff or keep him quiet Our Saviour himself has given us a President he whipt buyers and sellers out of the Temple which act of buying and selling was not so great an impiety as to disturb the worship of God in the very act and exercise of it Court The St. of 1 Ph. Ma. concerns Preachers only but there is another Act made 1 Eliz. that extends to all men in Orders that perform any part of publick Service But neither of these Statutes take away the Common Law And at the Common Law any person there present might have removed the Plaintiff for they were all concern'd in the Service of God that was then performing so that the Plaintiff in disturbing it was a Nusance to them all and might be removed by the same rule of Law that allows a man to abate a Nusance Whereupon Iudgment was given for the Defendant Nisi causa c. Anonymus ACtion sur le Case The Plaintiff declares that whereas the Testator of the Defendant was endebted to the Plaintiff at the time of his death in the sum of 12 l. 10 s. that the Defendant in consideration of forbearance promised to pay him 5 l. at such a time and 5 l. more at such a time after and the other 50 shillings when he should have received money then avers that he did forbear c. and saith that the Defendant paid the two five pounds but for the 50 shilllings residue that he hath received money but hath not paid it The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit which was found against him Wilmot moved in arrest of Iudgment that the Plaintiff doth not set forth how much money the Defendant had received who perhaps had not received so much as 50 shillings he said though the promise was general yet the breach ought to be laid so as to be adequate to the consideration And secondly that the Plaintiff ought to have set forth of whom the Defendant received the money and when and where because the receit was traversable The Court agreed that there was good cause to demur to the Declaration but after a Verdict they would intend that the Defendant had received 50 shillings because else the Iury would not have given so much in damages and for the other exception they held that the Defendant having taken the general issue had waived the benefit thereof Alford Tatnell GRegory Melchisedec Alford were bound joyntly to Tatnell in a Bond of 700 l. the Obligee brought several Actions and obtained two several Iudgments in this Court against the Obligors and sued both to an Outlawry And in Mich. Term. 18 Car. 2. both were returned outlawed In Hill Term following Gregory Alford was taken upon a Cap. utlagatum by Browne Sheriff of Dorset-shire who voluntarily suffered him to escape Tatnell brought an Action of Debt upon this escape against Browne and recover'd and receiv'd satisfaction notwithstanding which he proceeded to take Melchisedec Alford who brought an Audita querela and set forth all this matter in his Declaration but upon a demurrer the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff for a fault in the Declaration viz. because the satisfaction made to the Plaintiff by the Sheriff was not specially pleaded viz. time and place alledged where it was made for it is issuable and for ought appears by the Declaration it was made after the Writ of Audita querela purchased and before the Declaration The Court said if Tatnell had only brought an Action on the case against the Sheriff and recovered damages for the escape though he had had the damages paid that would not have béen sufficient ground for the Plaintiff here to bring an Audita querela but in this case he recovered his Original debt in an Action of debt grounded upon the escape which is a sufficient ground of Action if he had declared well They gave day to show cause why the Declaration should not be amended paying Costs Anonymus AN Action of False Imprisonment The Defendants justifie by vertue of a Warrant out of a Court within the County Palatine of Durham to which the Plaintiff demur'd The material part of the Plea was That there was antiqua Curia tent coram Vicecomite Comitatus c. vocat The County Court which was accustomed to be held de 15 diebus in 15 dies and that there was a Custom that upon a Writ of questus est nobis issuing out of the County Palatine of Durham and delivered to the Sheriff c. that upon the Plaintiffs affirming quandam querelam against such person or persons against whom the questus est nobis issued the Sheriff used to make out a Writ in the nature of a cap. ad satisfac against him or them c. that such a Writ of questus est nobis issued ex Cur ' Cancellarii Dunelm which was delivered to the Sheriff who thereupon made a precept to his Bayliffs to take the Plaintiff who thereupon was arrested which
persons who were all capable that there was no difference betwixt that case and this Ellis said that in Floyd Gregories case reported in Jones it was made a point and that Jones in his argument denied the case of Hunt Singleton he said that himself and Sir Rowland Wainscott reported it and that nothing was said of that point but that my Lord Coke followed the Report of Serjeant Bridgeman who was three or four years their puisne and that he mistook the case Milword Ingram THe Plaintiff declares in an Action of the case upon a quantum meruit for 40 shillings and upon an Indebitat Assumpsit for 40 shillings likewise The Defendant acknowledged the promises but further says that the Plaintiff and he accounted together for divers sums of money and that upon the foot of the Account the Defendant was found to be endebted to the Plaintiff in 3 shillings and that the Plaintiff in consideration that the Defendant promised to pay him those 3 shillings discharged him of all demands The Plaintiff demurred The Court gave Iudgment against the demurrer 1. They held that if two men being mutually endebted to each other do account together and the one is found in arrear so much and there be an express agréement to pay the sum found to be in arrear and each to stand discharged of all other demands that this is a good discharge in Law and the parties cannot resort to the original Contracts But North Ch. Just said if there were but one Debt betwixt them entring into an account for that would not determine the Contract 2. They held also that any promise might well be discharged by paroll but not after it is broken for then it is a Debt Jones Wait. SHrewsbury Cotton are Towns adjoining Sir Samuel Jones is Tenant in Tail of Lands in both Towns Shrewsbury Cotton are both within the Liberties of the Town of Shrewsbury Sir Samuel Jones suffers a Common Recovery of all his Lands in both Vills but the Praecipe was of two Messuages and Closes thereunto belonging these were in Shrewsbury and of c. mentioning those in Cotton lying and being in the Ville of Shrewsbury in the Liberties thereof And whether by this Recovery the Lands lying in Cotton which is a distinct Ville of it self not named in the Recovery pass or not was the question Serjeant Jones argued against the Recovery He cited Cr. Jac. 575. in Monk Butler's case Cr. Car. 269 270. 276. he said the Writ of Covenant upon which a Fine is levied is a personal Action but a Common Recovery is a real Action and the Land it self demanded in the Praecipe There is no President he said of such a Recovery He cited a case Hill 22 23 Car. 2. Rot. 223. Hutton 106. Marche's Reports one Johnson Baker's case which he said was the case in point and resolved for him But the Court were all of Opinion that the Lands in Cotton passed And gave Iudgment accordingly Ellis said if the Recovery were erroneous at least they ought to allo 〈…〉 t till it were reversed Lepping Kedgewin AN Action in the nature of a Conspiracy was brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in which the Declaration was insufficient The Defendant pleaded an ill plea but Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff upon the insufficiency of the Declaration Which ought to have been entred Quod Defendens eat inde sine die but by mistake or out of design it was entred Quia placitum praedictum in forma praedicta superius placitat ' materiaque in eodem contenta bonum sufficiens in lege existit c. ideo consideratum est per Cur ' quod Quer ' nil capiat per billam The Plaintiff brings a new Action and declares aright The Defendant pleads the Iudgment in the former Action and recites the Record verbatim as it was To which the Plaintiff demurred And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff nisi causa c. North Chief Justice There is no question but that if a man mistakes his Declaration and the Defendant demurs the Plaintiff may set it right in a second Action But here it is objected that the Iudgment is given upon the Defendants plea. Suppose a Declaration be faulty and the Defendant take no advantage of it but pleads a plea in bar and the Plaintiff takes issue and the right of the matter is found for the Defendant I hold that in this case the Plaintiff shall never bring his Action about again for he is estopped by the Verdict Or suppose such a Plaintiff demur to the plea in bar there by his demurrer he confesseth the fact if well pleaded and this estops him as much as a Verdict would But if the plea were not good then there is no Estoppel And we must take notice of the Defendants plea for upon the matter as that falls out to be good or otherwise the second Action will be maintainable or not The other Iudges agreed with him in omnibus Atkinson Rawson THe Plaintiff declares against the Defendant as Executor The Defendant pleads that the Testator made his Will and that he the Defendant suscepto super se onere Testamenti praedict c. did pay divers sums of money due upon specialties and that there was a Debt owing by the Testator to the Defendants Wife and that he retained so much of the Testators Goods as to satisfie that Debt and that he had no other Assets The Plaintiff demurred because for ought appears the Defendant is an Executor de son tort and then he cannot retain for his own debt The Plaintiffs naming him in his Declaration Executor of the Testament of c. will not make for him for that he does of necessity he cannot declare against him any other way and of that Opinion was all the Court viz. that he ought to entitle himself to the Executorship that it may appear to the Court that he is such a person as may retain And accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Term. Hill 27 28 Car. II. in Com. Banco Smith's Case A Man dies leaving Issue by two several Venters viz. by the first three Sons and by the second two Daughters One of the Sons dies intestate the elder of the two surviving Brothers takes out Administration and Sir Lionel Jenkins Iudge of the Prerogative Court would compell the Administrator to make distribution to the Sisters of the half-blood He prayed a Prohibition but it was denied upon advice by all the Iudges for that the Sisters of the half-blood being a kin to the Intestate and not in remotiori gradu then the Brother of the whole blood must be accounted in equal degree Anonymus AN Action was brought against four men viz. two Attornies and two Solicitors for being Attornies and Solicitors in a cause against the Plaintiff in an inferiour Court falso malitiose knowing that there was no cause of Action against him and
a distinction Our Saviour is called the Son of David though there were 28 Generations betwixt David and him And a republication may impose another sense upon words different from what they had when they were first written as if a man devise all his Lands in Dale and have but two Acres in Dale the words now extend to no more then those two Acres and if he purchase more and dye without any new publication the new purchased Lands will not pass But if there were a new publication after the purchase they would then pass well enough If a man has issue two Sons called Thomas and he makes a devise to his Son Thomas this may be ascertained by an averment Now suppose that Thomas the deviseé dye living the Father and afterward the Father publisheth his Will anew and says that he did intend that his Son Thomas now dead should have had his Land but now his Will and intent is that Thomas his younger Son now living shall take his Land by the same Will In this case to be sure the second Son Thomas shall take by the devise Here the import of the words is clearly altered by the republication Atkyns The words of this Will would not of themselves be sufficient to carry the Land to the Grand-child nor would the intention of the Devisor do it without them but both together do the business Quae non prosunt singula juncta juvant Wyndham Scroggs differed in Opinion and the cause was adjourned to be argued the next Term. North. A man admitted in forma pauperis is not to have a new Trial granted him for he has had the benefit of the Kings Iustice once and must acquiesce in it We do not suffer them to remove causes out of inferiour Courts They must satisfie themselves with the Iurisdiction within which their Action properly lieth Farrington Lee. ASsumpsit The Plaintiff declares upon 2 indebitatus Assumpsits and a third Assumpsit upon an insimul computasset The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit infra sex annos the Plaintiff replied that himself is a Merchant and the Defendant his Factor and recites a clause in the Statute in which Actions of Account between Merchants and Merchants and Merchants and their Factors concerning their Trade and Merchandize are excepted and avers that this money became due to the Plaintiff upon an account betwixt him and the Defendant concerning Merchandise c. the Defendant makes an impertinent rejoynder to which the Plaintiff demurs Nudigate pro Querente This Statute is in the nature of a penal Law because it restrains the liberty which the Plaintiff has by the Common Law to bring his Action when he will and must therefore be construed beneficialy for the Plaintiff Pl. 54. Cr. Car. 294. Finche Lambe's case to this purpose Also this exception of Accounts between Merchants and their Factors must be liberally expounded for their benefit because the Law-makers in making such an exception had an eye to the incouragement of Trade and Commerce The words of the exception are other then such Accounts as concern the Trade of Merchandise c. now this Action of ours is not indeed an Action of Account but it is an Action grounded upon an Account And the Plaintiff being at liberty to bring either the one or the other upon the same cause of Action and one of the Actions being excepted expresly out of the limitation of the Statute the other by Equity is excepted also He cited Hill 17 Car. 1. in Marshe's Reports 151. Jones 401. Sandys Blodwell Mich. 13 Car. 1. and prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff Serjeant Baldwin contra He said it did not appear in the Declaration that this Action was betwixt a Merchant and his Factor so that then the plea in bar is prima facie good And when he comes and sets it forth in his Replication he is too late in it and the replication is not pursuant to his Declaration But all the Court was against him in this Then he said the Statute excepted Actions of Account only and not Actions upon an indeb Assumpsit Cur ' Whereas it has been said by Serjeant Nudigate that the Plaintiff here has an Election to bring an Action of account or an Indebitat Assumpsit that is false for till the Account be stated betwixt them an Action of Account lies and not an Action upon the Case When the Account is once stated then an Action upon the case lies and not an Action of Account Et per North if upon an Indebitat Assumpsit matters are offered in evidence that lie in account I do not allow them to be given in evidence North Wyndham Scroggs the exception of the Statute goes only to Actions of Account and not to other Actions And we take a diversity betwixt an account current and an account stated After the account stated the certainty of the Debt appears and all the intricacy of account is out of doors and the Action must be brought within six years after the account stated But by North if after an account stated upon the ballance of it a sum appear due to either of the parties which sum is not paid but is afterward thrown into a new account between the same parties it is now slip't out of the Statute again Scroggs The Statute makes a difference betwixt Actions upon Account and Actions upon the case The words would else have been All Actions of Account and upon the Case other then such Actions as concern the Trade of Merchandise But it is otherwise penned other then such Accounts as concern c. and as this case is there is no account betwixt the parties the account is determined and the Plaintiff put to his Action upon an insimul computasset which is not within the benefit of the exception Atkyns I think the makers of this Statute had a greater regard to the persons of Merchants then the causes of Action between them And the reason was because they are often out of the Realm and cannot always prosecute their Actions in due time The Statute makes no difference betwixt an account current and an account stated I think also that no other sort of Tradesmen but Merchants are within the benefit of this exception and that it does not extend to Shop-kéepers they not being within the same mischief Adjurnatur Horn versus Chandler COvenant upon an Indenture of an Apprentice wherein the Defendant bound himself to serve the Plaintiff for seven years The Plaintiff sets forth the custom of London That any person above 14 and under 21 unmarried may bind himself Apprentice c. according to the custom and that the Master thereupon shall have tale remedium against him as if he were 21 and alledges that the Defendant did go away from his Service per quod he lost his Service for the said term which term is not yet expired The Defendant pleads a frivolous plea. To which the Plaintiff demurs Heley Though such a Covenant shall
is 24 Ed. 3. 30. Pl. 27. which is our very case The King brings a Quare Impedit for a Church appendant to a Mannor as a Guardian the Defendant makes a Title and traverseth the Title alledged by the King in his Count viz. the appendancy the King replies and Traverses the Defendants Title For this cause the Defendant demurs and Iudgment was for the King In this case it doth not appear in the pleading that the King was in by matter of Record and so it is our very case For the King may be in by possession by virtue of a Wardship without matter of Record by Entry c. Stamf. Prerog 54. I rely upon these two Cases But 7 H. 8. Keil 175. is somewhat to the purpose Per Fitz. In a Ravishment of Ward by the King if the Defendant make a Title and traverse the Kings Title the Kings Attorney may maintain the Kings Title and Traverse the Defendants Title I think there is no difference betwéen the Kings being in possession by matter of Record and by matter of Fact Again If matter of Record be necessary here is enough viz. The Queens Presentation under the Great Seal of England And here is a descent which is and must be Jure Coronae It is unreasonable that a Subject should turn the King out of possession by him that hath no Title This is a Prerog Case As to the Statutes objected by my Brother Archer they concern not this case The first enables the Patron to counterplead But here the Patron pleads The rest concern the Kings Presenting En auter droit But here it is in his own Right I think the King in our case may fly upon the Defendants Title and there is no inconvenience in it For the Kings Title is not a bare suggestion For it is confessed by the Defendant that the Quéen did Present But he alledges it was by Lapse For another reason I think Iudgment ought to be for the King viz. because the Defendant has committed the first fault For his Bar is naught in that he has traversed the Queens Seisin in Grosse whereas he ought to have traversed the Queens Presentment modo forma For where the Title is by a Seisin in Grosse it is repugnant to admit the Presentment and deny the Seisin in Grosse because the Presentment makes it a Seisin in Grosse 10 H. 7. 27. Pl. 7. in point and so is my Lord Buckhurst's Case in 1 Leonard 154. The traverse here is a matter of substance But if it be but Form it is all one For the King is not within the Statute 27 El. cap. 5. So he concluded that Iudgment ought to be given for the King Doctor Lee's Case A Motion was made by Raymond for a Writ of Priviledge to be discharged from the Office of Expenditour to which he was elected and appointed by the Commissioners of Sewers in some part of Kent in respect of some Lands he had within the Levell He insisted that the Doctor was an Ecclesiastical person Archdeacon of Rochester where his constant attendance is required Adding that the Office to which he was appointed was but a mean Office being in the nature of that of a Bayliff to receive and pay some small sums of money and that the Lands in respect whereof he is elected were let to a Tenant V. 1. Cr. 585. Abdy's case It was objected against this that this Archdeacons Predecessors did execute this Office and the Court ordered that notice should be given and cause shewn why the Doctor should not do the like Afterward Rainesford Morton only being in Court it was ruled he should be priviledged Because he is a Clergy-man F. B. 175. r. But I think for another reason viz. because the Land is in Lease and the Tenant if any ought to do the Office Take the Writ Lucy Lutterell vid. versus George Reynell Esq George Turbervile Esq John Cory Ann Cory THe Plaintiff as Administratrix to Jane Lutterell durante minori aetate of Alexander Lutterell the Plaintiffs second Son declared against the Defendants in an Action of Trespass for that they simul cum John Chappell c. did take away 4000 l. of the moneys numbred of the said Jane upon the 20th day of October 1680. and so for seven days following the like sums ad damnum of 32000 l. Upon a full hearing of Witnesses on both sides the Iury found two of the Defendants guilty and gave 6000 l. damages and the others not guilty A new Trial was afterwards moved for and denied At the Trial Mr. Attorney General excepted against the Evidence that if it were true it destroyed the Plaintiffs Action inasmuch as it amounted to prove the Defendants guilty of Felony and that the Law will not suffer a man to smooth a Felony and bring Trespass for that which is a king of Robbery Indeed said he if they had been acquitted or found guilty of the Felony the Action would lye and therefore it may be maintained against Mrs. Cory who was as likewise was William Maynard acquitted upon an Indictment of Felony for this matter but not against the rest But my Lord Chief Baron declared and it was agreed that it should not lye in the mouth of the party to say that himself was a Thief and therefore not guilty of the Trespass But perhaps if it had appeared upon the Declaration the Defendant ought to have been discharged of the Trespass Quaere what the Law would be if it appeared upon the pleading or were found by special Verdict My Lord Ch. Baron did also declare and it was agréed that whereas W. Maynard one of the Witnesses for the Plaintiff was guilty as appeared by his own Evidence together with the Defendants but was left out of the Declaration that he might be a Witness for the Plaintiff that he was a good and legal Witness but his credit was lessened by it for that he swore in his own discharge For that when these Defendants should be convicted and have satisfied the Condemnation he might plead the same in Bar of an Action brought against himself But those in the simul cum were no Witnesses Several witnesses were received and allowed to prove that William Maynard did at several times discourse and declare the same things and to the like purpose that he testified now And my Lord Chief Baron said though a hear-say was not to be allowed as a direct Evidence yet it might be made use of to this purpose viz. to prove that William Maynard was constant to himself whereby his Testimony was Corroborated One Thorne formerly Mr. Reynell's Servant being Subpoened by the Plaintiff to give Evidence at this trial did not appear But it being sworn by the Exeter Waggoner that Thorne came so far on his Iourney hitherward as Blandford and there fell so sick that he was not able to travel any further his Depositions in Chancery in a Suit there between these parties about this matter were admitted to be read
it was said that the Act of Parliament only takes away a Writ of Error in such case but there is no day in Bank to plead It was order'd to stand in the paper Corporation of Darby THe Corporation of the Town of Darby prescribe to have Common sans number in grosse Sanders I conceive it may be by prescription what a man may grant may be prescribed for Co. Lit. 122. is express Keel In a Forest the King may grant Common for Sheep but you cannot prescribe for it And if you may prescribe for Common sans number in grosse then you may drive all the Cattel in a Fair to the Common Sanders But the prescription is for their own Cattel only Twisd If you prescribe for common sans number appurtenant to Land you can put in no more Cattel then what is proportionable to your Land for the Land stints you in that case to a reasonable number But if you prescribe for common sans number in grosse what is it that sets any bounds in such case There was a case in Glyn's time betwéen Masselden and Stoneby where Masselden prescribed for common sans number without saying levant couchant and that being after a Verdict was held good but if it had been upon a Demurrer it would have been otherwise Livesey said he was agent for him in the case Bucknall Swinnock INdebitat Assumpsit for money received to the Plaintiffs use the Defendant pleads specially that post assumptionem praedictam there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant that the Defendant should pay the money to J. S. and he did pay it accordingly The Plaintiff demurrs Jones This plea doth not only amount to the general issue but is repugnant in it self It was put off to be argued Hall versus Wombell THe question was whether an Action of Debt would lie upon a Iudgment given by the Commissioners of Excise upon an Information before them Adjornatur Vaughan Casewell A Writ of Error was brought to reverse a Iudgment given at the grand Sessions in Wales in a Writ of Quod ei deforciat Sanders The point in Law will be this whether a Tenants vouching a Vouchee out of the line be peremptory and final or that a Respondeas ouster shall be awarded Mr. Jones In an Assise the Tenant may vouch another named in the Writ 9 H. 5. 14. and so in the Com. fo 89. b. but a voucher cannot be of one not named in the Writ because it is festinum remedium In Wales they never allow foreign vouchers because they cannot bring them in If there be a Counterplea to a Voucher and that be adjudged in another Term it is always peremptory otherwise if it be determined the same Term. An Action of Trover and Conversion was brought against husband and wife and the wife arrested Twisd The wife must be discharged upon Common bail so it was done in the Lady Baltinglasse's case And where it is said in Crook that the Wife in such case shall be discharged it is to be understood that she shall be discharged upon Common bail So Livesey said the course was It was said to be the course of the Court That if an Attorney be sued time enough to give him two Rules to plead within the Term Iudgment may be given otherwise not Russell Collins AN Assumpsit was brought upon two several promises and entire damages were given Moved by Mr. Sympson in arrest of Iudgment that for one of the promises an Action will not lie It was a general indebitatus pro opere facto which was urged to be too general and uncertain But per Cur ' it is well enough as pro mercimoniis venditis pro servitio without mentioning the Goods or the Service in particular And the Plaintiff had Iudgment Dyer versus East AN Action upon the Case upon a promise for Wares that the wife took up for her wearing Apparel Polyxfen moved for a new Trial. Keel The husband must pay for the wives Apparel unless she does elope and he give notice not to trust her that is Scott Manby's case which was a hard Iudgment but we will not impeach it The Plaintiff had Iudgment Beckett Taylor DEbt upon a Bond to submit to an Award Exception was taken to the Award because the concurrence of a third person was awarded which makes it void They award that one of the parties shall discharge the other from his undertaking to pay a Debt to a third person and it was pretended that the third person being no party to the submission was not compellable to give a discharge But it was answered that he is compellable for in case the debt be paid him he is compellable in equity to give a Release to him that had undertaken to pay it Rolls 1 part 248. Giles Southwards case Mich. 1653. Judgment nisi Seventéen Serjeants being made the 4th of November a day or two after Serjeant Powis the Junior of them all coming to the Kings Bench bar the Lord Chief Iustice Keeling told him that he had something to say to him viz. That the Rings which he and the rest of the Serjeants had given weighed but 18 s. apiece whereas Fortescue in his book de laudibus legum Angliae says That the Rings given to the Chief Iustices and to the Chief Baron ought to weigh 20 s. apiece and that he spake this not expecting a recompence but that it might not be drawn into a president and that the young Gentlemen there might take notice of it Clerke versus Rowell Phillips A Trial at bar in Ejectment for Lands settled by Sir Pexall Brockhurst The Court said a Trial against others shall not be given in Evidence in this cause And Twisden said that an Entry to deliver a Declaration in Ejectment should not work to avoid a Fine but that it must be an express Entry Vpon which last matter the Plaintiff was non-suit Redmans Case IT was moved that one Redman an Attorney of the Court who was going into Ireland might put in special Bail Twisd A Clerk of the Court cannot put in bail You have filed a Bill against him and so waved his putting in bail Keel You may remember Woolly's case that we discharged him by reason of his priviledge and took Common bail Twisd You cannot declare against him in custodia But though we cannot take bail yet we may commit him and then deliver him out by mainpernancy Jones If he be in Court in propria persona you cannot procéed against his bail The Court agréed that the Attorney should not put in bail Grafton GRafton one of the Company of Drapers was brought by Habeas Corpus In the Return the cause of his Imprisonment was alledged to be for that being chosen of the Livery he refused to serve Per Cur ' they might have fined him and have brought an Action of Debt for the sum but they could nor imprison him Keel The Court of Aldermen may imprison a
Will because he hath not put it out of him there arises an Vse and a Trust for himself But in our case he hath put the Vses out of himself for there are several Vses declared But there is a further difference if Simon Mayne had declared the Vse to others absolutely and had reserved liberty to himself to have altered it by his Will that might have altered the case But here the Proviso is That if at the time of his death he shall have a Son c. so that it is reduced to him upon a Condition and Contingency As to the power of Revocation he cited the Duke of Norfolks case in Englefields case which Twisd said came strongly to this Adjourned V. infr An Information was exhibited against one for a Libel Coleman The party has confessed the matter in Court and therefore cannot plead not guilty Twisd You may plead not guilty with a relicta verificatione Horne Ivy. TResp for taking away a Ship The Defendant justifies under the Patent whereby the Canary-Company is incorporated and granted that none but such and such should Trade thither on pain of forfeiting their Ships and Goods c. and says that the Defendant did Trade thither c. the Plaintiff demurs Polynxfen He ought to have shown the Deed whereby he was authoriz'd by the Company to seize the Goods 26 H. 6. 8. 14 Ed. 4. 8. Bro. Corp. 59. though I agree that for ordinary Imployments and Services a Corporation may appoint a Servant without Deed as a Cook a Butler c. Plo. Com. 91. A Corporation cannot Licence a stranger to sell Trees without Deed 12 H. 4. 17. Nor can they make a Diuessor without Deed nor deliver a Letter of Attorney without Deed. 9 Ed. 4. 59. Bro. Corp. 24. 34. 14 H. 7. 1. 7 H. 7. 9. Rolls 514. tit Corporation Dr. Bonhams case Again the plea is double for the Defendant alledgeth two causes of a breach of their Charter viz. their taking in Wines at the Canaries and importing them here which is double Then there is a clause that gives the forfeiture of Goods and Imprisonment which cannot be by Patent 8 Rep. 125. Waggoners case Noy 123. in the case of Monopolies This Patent I take also to be contrary to some Acts of Parliament viz. 9 Ed. 3. c. 1. 2 Ed. 3. cap. 2. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 1. 11 Rich. 2. cap. 2. and these Statutes the King cannot dispence withall by a Non obstante Twisd For the first point I think they cannot seize without Deed no more then they can enter for a Condition broken without Deed. Keel We desire to be satisfied whether this be a Monopoly or not It was ordered to be argued Pryn versus Smith SCire Facias in this Court upon a Recognizance by way of Bail upon a Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff did after Iudgment sue forth a Capias ad satisfaciend out of this Court to the Sheriff of Middlesex whereupon he was taken in Execution and suffered to escape by the Plaintiffs own consent Jones We have demurred because they do not lay a place where this Court was holden nor where the Plaintiff gave his consent Redman Pyne AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these words of the Plaintiff being a Watch-maker viz. He is a bungler and knows not how to make a good piece of work but there was no colloquium laid of his Trade Pemberton The Iury have supply'd that having found that he is a Watch-maker And it is true that words shall be taken in mitiori sensu but that is when they are doubtful Caudry's case 1 Cro. 196. Twisden I remember a Shoe-maker brought an Action against a man for saying that he was a Cobler And though a Cobler be a Trade of it self yet held that the Action lay in Glyn's time Saunders If he had said that he could not make a good Watch it would have béen known what he had meant but the words in our case are indifferent and perhaps had no relation to his Trade Ordered to stay Vere Reyner AN Action upou the Case upon a promise to carry duas carectatas c. Rotheram It s uncertain whether carectata signifies a Horse-load or a Cart-load Judgment nisi c. Twisd I have known if a Iudgment be given and there is an agréement betwéen the parties not to take out Execution till next Term and they do it before that the Court has set all aside One brought up by Habeas Corpus out of the Cinque-Ports upon an Information for breaking Prison where he was in upon an Execution for Debt Barrell moved against it Twisd Suppose a man be arrested in the Cinque-Ports for a matter arising there and then another hath cause to arrest him here is there not a way to bring him up by Habeas Corpus Barrell It was never done but there has béen a Habeas Corpus thither ad faciend recipiend Keel If a man be in Prison in the Fléet we bring him up by Habeas Corpus in case there be a Suit against him here Twisd Where shall such a man be sued upon a matter arising out of the Cinque-Ports Barrell If it be transitory he must be sued there if local elsewhere Twisd Then you grant if local that there must be a Habeas Corpus And so it was allowed in this case Two Iustices of Peace made an Order in Session-time against one Reignolds as reputed Father for the kéeping of a Bastard-child Reignolds appealed to the same Sessions where the Iustices made an Order that one Burrell should kéep it Jones moved to set aside this Order though an Order of Sessions upon an Appeal from two Iustices because he said the first Order being made in Session time that Sessions could not be said to be the next within the Stat. of 18 Eliz. and because the Iustices at the Sessions did not quash the Order made by two Iustices Keel They ought to have done that Twisd They may vacat the first Order and refer it back to two Iustices as res integra The Order being read one clause of it was that Burrell should pay 12 d. a wéek for kéeping the Child till it came to be twelve years of age which Twisden said was ill for it ought to be so long as it continues chargeable to the Parish The parties were bound over to appear at the next Assizes in Essex Darby-shire versus Cannon SYmpson moved that the Defendant having submitted to a Rule of Court for referring the matter and not performing the Award an Attachment might be granted against him Which was granted but when the party comes in upon the Attachment he may alledge that the Award is void and if it appear to be so he shall not be bound to perform it Owen Hannings IN a Trial at Bar upon a Scire facias to avoid a Patent of the Office of Searcher exception was taken to a Witness that he was to
neither Keeling If an Infant let you a House shall he not have an Action against you for the Rent Twisd I have known an Action upon the case brought by an Infant upon a promise to pay so much money in consideration that he would permit the Defendant to enjoy such a House it was long insisted upon that this was not a good consideration because not reciprocal for the Infant might avoid his promise if an Action were grounded upon it against him but it was adjudged to be a good consideration and that the Action was maintainable And in the principal case the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi c. Bear versus Bennett TWisden When a man is arrested and has lain in Prison three Terms and is discharged upon Common bail whether shall the Plaintiff ever hold the Defendant to special Bail afterward for the same cause if he begins anew Keel If he may then may a man be kept in Prison for ever at that rate At last it was agreed that if he would pay the Defendant his Costs for lying so long in prison he should have special Bail Mr. Masters moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court to stay a Suit there against a man for having married his Wives Sisters Daughter alledging the Marriage to be out of the Levitical degrees Cur. Take a Prohibition and demur to it for it is a case of moment Dominus Rex versus Turnith MOved to quash an Indictment upon 5 Eliz. cap. 2. for exercising a Trade in Chesthunt in Hertfordshire not having been an Apprentice to it for seven years because the Statute says they shall proceed at the Quarter-Sessions and the word Quarter is not in the Indictment Twisden That word ought to be in And I believe the using of a Trade in a Country Village as this is is not within the Statute Morton accorded Rainesford It will be very prejudicial to Corporations not to extend the Statute to Villages Twisden I have heard all the Iudges say that they will never extend that Statute further then they needs must Obj. further That there wanted these words sc Ad tunc ibidem onerati jurati for which all the three Iudges Keeling being absent conceived it ought to be quash'd A cause was removed out of London by Habeas Corpus wherein the Plaintiff had declared against the Defendant as a feme sole Merchant and Bartue moved for a Procedendo because he said they could not declare against her here as a feme sole for that she had a Husband Jones contra The Husband may then be joyned with her for he is not beyond Sea Twisd I think a Procedendo must be granted for the cause alledged It was resolved in Langlin Brewin's case in Cro. though not reported by him that if the Wife use the same Trade that her Husband does she is not within the Custom And they are to determine the matter there whether this case be within their Custom perhaps a Victualler as this Trade is is not such a Trade as their Custom will warrant and whether it will warrant it or not is in their Iudgment A Procedendo was granted Tomlin versus Fuller A Special Action on the Case was brought for keeping a passage stopt up so that the Plaintiff could not come to cleanse his Gutter After Verdict for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there ought to have been a request for the opening of it Answ It s true where the Nusance is not by the party himself there must be notice before the Action brought but in this case the wrong began in the Defendants own time Twisden I know this hath been ruled where a man made a Lease of a House with free liberty of ingress c. through part of the Lessors House the Lessor notwithstanding might shut up his doors and was not bound to leave them open for his coming in at one or two of the Clock at night but he must keep good hours And must the Defendant in this case keep his Gate always open expecting him wherefore it seems he ought to have laid a request Cur. It s aided by the Verdict Twisden It is not good at the Common Law and the Defendant might well have demurred for that cause Judgment pro Querente Butler Play UPon a motion for a new Trial in a cause where the matter was upon protesting a Bill of Exchange Serj-Maynard said the protest must be on the day that the money becomes due Twisden It hath been ruled That if a Bill be denied to be paid it must be protested in a reasonable time and that 's within a Fortnight but the Debt is not lost by not doing it on the day A new Trial was denied Hughes Underwood KEeling The very Sealing of the Writ of Error is a Supersedeas to the Execution Twisd There was once a Writ of Error to remove the Record of a Iudgment between such and such but some of the parties names were left out and by my Brother Wyld's advice that Writ not removing the Record they took out Execution But the Court was of Opinion that though the Record was not removed thereby of which yet they said he was not Iudge whether it was or not yet that it so bound up the cause that they could not take out Execution It is indeed good cause to quash the Writ of Error when it comes up but Execution cannot be taken out Term. Hill 21 22 Car. II. 1669. in B. R. Jefferson Dawson IN a Scire facias upon a Recognisance in Chancery entered into by one Garraway There was a demurrer to part and issue upon part And the question was whether this Court could give Iudgment upon the demurrer Jones The Iudgment upon the demurrer must be given in Chancery The Court of Chancery cannot try an Issue and therefore it is sent hither to be tryed but with the demurrer this Court has nothing to do Indeed the books differ in case of an Issue sent hither out of Chancery whether the Iudgment shall be here or there Keilway says it ought to be given here My Lord Coke in his 4 Inst says it must be given in Chancery But none ever made it a question whether Iudgment upon a demurrer were to be given here or there V. Co. Jurisdiction of Courts fol. 80. Saunders contra When there is a demurrer upon part and Issue upon part the Record being here this Court ought to give Iudgment because there can be but one Execution Keeling If the Record come hither entirely we cannot send it back again I cannot find one Authority that the Record shall be removed from hence He cited Keilway 941. 21 H. 7. Co. 2. 12. Co. Entries 678. 24 Ed. 3. fol. 65. there it is held that Iudgment shall be given here upon a demurrer Now if it must not be given here there must be two Executions for the same thing or else they must loose half for they can
Trespass was brought for taking away a Cup till he paid him 20 shillings The Defendant pleads that ad quandam curiam he was amerced and that for that the Cup was taken Hales We cannot tell what Court it is whether it be a Court-Baron by Grant or Prescription if it be by Grant then it must be coram Seneschallo if by Prescription it may be coram Seneschallo or coram Sectatoribus or coram both Then it does not appear that the House where the Trespass was laid was within the Manor Then he doth not say infra Jur. Cur ' It was put upon the other side to shew cause Jacob Hall's Case ONe Jacob Hall a Rope-dancer had erected a Stage in Lincolns-Inn-fields but upon a Petition of the Inhabitants there was an Inhibition from Whitehall now upon a complaint to the Iudges that he had erected one at Charing-cross he was sent for into Court and the Chief Iustice told him that he understood it was a Nusance to the Parish and some of the Inhabitants being in Court said that it did occasion Broyles and Fightings and drew so many Rogues to that place that they lost things out of their Shops every Afternoon And Hales said that in 8 Car. 1. Noy came into Court and prayed a Writ to prohibit a Bowling-Ally erected near St. Dunstans Church and had it Sir Anthony Bateman's Case IN the Trial at Bar the Son and Daughter of Sir Anthony Bateman were Defendants the Action was an Ejectione Firmae The Defendants admitted the point of Sir Anthony's Bankrupcy but set up a Conveyance made by Sir Anthony to them for the payment of 1500 l. apiece being money given to them by their Grandfather Mr. Russell to whom Sir Anthony took out Administration Hales It is a voluntary Conveyance unless you can prove that Sir Anthony had Goods in his hands of Mr. Russell at the time of the executing it So they proved that he had and there was a Verdict for the Defendants Legg Richards EJectment Iudgment against the Defendant who dies and his Executor brings a Writ of Error and is non-suited It was moved that he should pay Costs Twisden An Executor is not within the Statute for payment of Costs occasione dilationis Hales I am of the same Opinion Harwood's Case HE was brought to the Bar by Habeas Corpus being committed by the Court of Aldermen for marrying an Orphan without their consent Sol. North. We conceive the Return insufficient and that it is an unreasonable Custom to impose a Penalty on a man for marrying a City-Orphan in any place of England Now we marryed her far from London and knew not that she was an Orphan Then they have put a Fine of 40 l. upon him whereas there is no cause why he should be denied Marriage with her there being no disparagement Twisden Mr. Waller of Berkingsfield was imprison'd six months for such a thing So the money was ordered to be brought into Court Vide infra 79. Leginham Porphery REplevin and Avowry for not doing Suit The Plaintiff sets forth a Custom that if any Tenant live at a distance if he comes at Michaelmas and pay eight pence to the Lord and a penny to the Steward he shall be excused for not attending and then says that he tendred eight pence c. and the Lord refused it c. Polynxfen I know no case where payment will do and tender and refusal will not do Hales Have you averred that there are sufficient Copy-holders that live near the Mannor Polynxfen We have averred that there are at least 120. Hales Surely tender and refusal is all one with payment Twisden An Award is made that super receptionem c. a man should give a Release there tender and refusal is enough Iudgment for the Defendant Waldron versus c. HAles It is true one Parish may contain thrée Vills The Parish of A. may contain the Vills of A. B. and C. that is when there are distinct Constables in every one of them But if the Constable of A. doth run through the whole then is the whole but one Ville in Law Or where there is a Tything-man it may be a Ville but if the Constable run through the Tything then it is all one Ville I know where three or four Thousand l. per annum hath béen enjoyed by a Fine levied of Land in the Ville of A. in which are five several Hamlets in which are Tythings but the Constable of A. runs through them all and upon that it was held good for all Here was a case of the Constable of Blandford-Forum wherein it was held that if he had a concurrent Iurisdiction with all the rest of the Constables the Fine would have passed the Lands in all In some places they have Tythingmen and no Constables Polynxfen Lambard 14. is that the Constable and the Tything-man are all one Hales That is in some places Praepositus is a proper word for a Constable and Decemarius for a Tything-man An Indictment for retaining a Servant without a Testimonial from his last Master Moved to quash it because it wants the words contra pacem 2. Becausâ—â—â—ey do not shew in what Trade it was So quash'd Moved to quash another Indictment because the year of our Lord in the Caption was in Figures Hales The year of the King is enough Moved for a Prohibition to the Spiritual Court for that they Sue a Parish for not paying a Rate made by the Church-wardens only whereas by the Law the major part of the Parish must joyn Twisden Perhaps no more of the Parish will come together Counsel If that did appear it might be something Hales A Writ of Error will lie in the Exchequer-Chamber of a Iudgment in a Scire facias grounded upon a Iudgment in one of the Actions mentioned in the 27 of Eliz. cap. 8. because it is in effect a piece of one of the Actions therein mentioned Harwood's Case HE was removed out of London by Habeas Corpus the Return was That he was fined and committed there for marrying a City-Orphan without the consent of the Court of Aldermen Exception 1. They do not say that the party was a Citizen or that the Marriage was within the City and they are not bound to take notice of a City Orphan out of the City for their Customs extend only to Citizens in the City Exception 2. They have not shewed that we had reasonable time to shew cause why we should not be fined Twisden These Objections were over-ruled in one Waller's case Afterward in the same Term Weston spake to it There are two matters upon which the validity of this Return doth depend viz. The Custom and the Offence within the Custom The Custom is laid that time out of mind the Court of Aldermen have had power to set a reasonable Fine upon such as should marry an Orphan without their leave and upon refusal to pay it to imprison him I conceive this Custom as it is laid to
be unreasonable it ought to be locally circumscribed and confined to the City 17 Ed. 4. 7. there was an Action brought upon the Statute of Labourers for retaining one that was the Plaintiffs retained Servant the Defendant pleaded in abatement that there was no place laid where the Plaintiffs retainer was and this was held a good Plea for that if it were in another County then where the Defendant retained him it was impossible for the Defendant to take notice of a Retainer in another County No more can we take notice who is a City Orphan in the County of Kent Then they have returned a Custom to imprison generally but it should have beén that without reasonable cause shewn they might imprison and the party have liberty to shew cause to the contrary Then I conceive they have returned the Fact as defective as the Custom they say that he marryed her without their consent they ought to have said that he took her out of their custody and your Lordships will not intend that she was in their custody when she was out of the City Offley of the same side and cited 21 Ed. 3. Fitz. Guard 31. and Hob. in Moor Hussey's case 95. 3 Cro. 803. 3 Cro. 689. 1 Cro. 561. In all the cases its returned that they were Free-men of the City Mr. Solicitor North on the same side cited Day Savage's case Mr. Attorney General on the other side said that because it was impossible to give notice to all therefore ex necessitate rei they must take notice at their peril Hales The City has an Interest in the Orphan wherever the Orphan be And for notice he may enquire there is no impossibility of his coming to the knowledge whether she be an Orphan or no therefore if he takes her he takes her at his peril Twisden And for the Fine such a Fine was set in Langham's Case and adjudged good Let a Citizen of London live where he will his Children shall be Orphans Hales Some things are local in themselves some things adherent to the person and follow the person now this is an Interest which follows the person and is transmitted to his Children and the party must take notice of it at his peril Cox St. Albanes A Prohibition was prayed for to the City of London because the Defendant had offered a Plea to the Iurisdiction sworn and it had been refused Hales In transitory Actions if they will plead a matter that ariseth out of the Iurisdiction and swear it before Imparlance and it be refused a Prohibition shall go There was a case in which it was adjudged 1. That upon a bare surmise that the matter ariseth out of the Iurisdiction the Court will not grant a Prohibition 2. It must be pleaded and the Plea sworn and it must come in before Imparlance If all this were done we would grant a Prohibition here It was also agréed in that case that the party should never be received to assign for Error that it was out of the Iurisdiction but it must be pleaded Twisd So in this Court when there is a Plea to the Iurisdiction as that it is within a County Palatine they plead it before Imparlance and swear their Plea Twisden There was a Venire facias returnable coram nobis apud Westm whereas it should have béen ubicunque fuerimus c. yet because the Court was held here it was held to be good Hales I remember it Hales When in an inferiour Court the Venire facias is ad prox Cur ' it is naught because it is uncertain when the Court will be kept But if it be at such a day ad prox Cur. it is good Anonymus A Writ of Error of a Iudgment in White-chappel After the Record was read Hales said the acts of a Court ought to be in the present Tense as praeceptum est not praeceptum fuit But the acts of the party may be in the Preterperfect Tense as venit protulit hic in Cur ' quandam querelam suam And the Continuances are in the Preterperfect Tense as venerunt not veniunt But upon another Exception the Court gave time to move it again Moved for a melius inquirendum to be granted to the Coroner of Kent who had returned an Inquisition concerning the death of one that was killed within the Manor of Greenwich he had returned that he dyed of a Meagrim in his head when he was really killed with a Coach Hales A melius inquirendum is generally upon an Office post mortem and is directed to the Sheriff Twisden But this cannot be to the Sheriff In 22 Ed. 4. the Coroner must enquire only super visum corporis And if you will have a new inquiry you must quash this Indéed a new inquiry was granted in Miles Bartly's case Thurland prayed that the Court being the supreme Coroner would examine the misdemeanor of the Coroner Hales Make some Oath of his misdemeanor because he is a sworn Officer Without Oath we will not quash this Inquisition Newdigate said that in the case of Miles Bartly the inquiry was not Filed and that that was the reason why a new one was granted Hales Let the Coroner attend he must take the Evidence in writing and he should bring his Examination into Court. Daniel Appleford's Case A Writ of Mandamus was directed to the Master and Fellows of New-Colledge in Oxford to restore one Daniel Appleford a Fellow They return that the Bishop of Winchester did erect the Colledge and among other Laws by which the Colledge was to be governed they return this to be one viz. That if a Scholar or other Member of the said Colledge should commit any crime whereby scandal might arise to the Colledge and that it appeared by his own confession or full Evidence of the Fact that then he should be removed without any remedy and that Daniel Appleford a Fellow was guilty of enormous Crimes and was convicted and thereupon removed and they pray Iudgment whether this Court will proceed Jones By this conclusion they rely chiefly upon the Iurisdiction of the Court I will lay this for a ground that this Court hath Iurisdiction in Extrajudicial causes as well as Iudicial 11 Rep. Bagg's case And Appleford hath no remedy but this I will not say that he may not have an Action upon the Case but by that he will not recover the thing but damages And for an Assize if a man be a Corporation sole or head of a Corporation aggregate and be turn'd out wrongfully he may have an Assize but for a man that is but an inferiour Member of a Corporation no Assize lyeth for him because he is but a part of the body politick and doth not stand by himself but must joyn with others and as he cannot have an Assize so he cannot have an Appeal Dyer 209. 11 Rep. in Bagg's case 24 H. 8. 22. 25 H. 8. cap. 19. 4 Inst 340. by these Authorities it appears that we are without
remedy by way of Appeal It may be objected that there can be no Appeal hither because it is a spiritual Corporation Now I say this is not a spiritual Corporation as appears by the foundation and I am of Opinion that if a Corporation be all of spirituall persons yet unless there be a spiritual end it is no spiritual Corporation but a Lay-one But if it be a spiritual Corporation yet Deprivation is a temporal act Dyer 209. Another Objection may be That the Founder hath provided that there shall be no Appeal I answer the Founder cannot by his foundation exclude Legal remedies against wrong A Custom which is the strongest Foundation doth not bind a man up from his Legal remedy Litt. Sect. 212. If a man should dispose of his Estate by Will and provide therein that if any difference should arise concerning the Execution of the same that it shall be determined by such and such and no Suit commenced upon it at the Common Law this would be a vain appointment he must not erect a Iurisdiction of his own to oust the Kings Courts of theirs Coleman I conceive this is such a Colledge as no Mandamus shall go to it in any case whatsoever for it is but a private Society and hath no influence upon the publick In Ryly's Records we find that Mandamus's were only Letters to Colledges c. and there were no Iudicial Mandamus's till Bagg's case and I never knew them go but when the party had not only a Freé-hold but one that was of publick concern Now a Fellowship of a Colledge is for a private design only to study and if you grant a Mandamus in this case whither will it go at last Then the Foundation was to a spiritual intent and what is committed to the Ecclesiastical Power and Iurisdiction this Court doth preserve Ecclesiastical men hold in Eleemosynam Litt. Sect. 136. Linwood de Religiosis domibus When Colledges are founded under rule and order it doth give the Bishop Iurisdiction so that this Court will not enquire into this matter no more than it will enquire into causes of Deprivation and matters relating to the Institution of Clergy-men It has béen denied that a Fellow of a Colledge can bring an Assize But as a Prebend hath two capacities sole and aggregate so a Fellow is a Member of a Corporation aggregate and hath a sole capacity in respect of his Fellowship For a Church-Warden who is admitted according to the course of the Ecclesiastical Law a Mandamus will not lie Vide 6 H. 7. 10. Twisden In one Patrick's case we all held that a Colledge was a Temporal Corporation Hales There is a reason given in Dyer why a Mandamus will not lye in the case there viz. because it was prayed to be awarded to a Temporal Corporation Coleman It doth appear by the Return that the Founder hath appointed a Visitor now to him there may be an Appeal and we have returned the Sentence of the Visitor and need not return the cause of the Sentence And for Books I do oppose Rolls tit Prerogative Huntly's case 209. to Specott's case and Ken's case in the Reports In our case the party has a remedy elsewhere and therefore he shall not come hither If a Mandamus shall lie for a Mastership Fellowship or Schollarship it will in time come to lie for turning out of Commons and what a combustion will this raise then The Niceties of Husband and Wife were said by the Iudges in Scott's case to be proper for the Spiritual Court and not fit to be brought before the Iudges Hales That a Mandamus lies I will not positively deny but whether is it fit for us to proceed after this Return It must be taken for granted that it is not a spiritual Corporation if it were you ought to Appeal to the Visitor and then to the Delegates It is a private Society as an Inns of Court and I confess that Mandamus's do generally respect matters of publick concern I never heard of a Mandamus for a Monk If there be a Iurisdiction in the Visitor and he hath determined the matter how will you get over that Sentence The Chancellor is Visitor of all the Kings Frée-Chappels and the 2 H. 5. doth make him so of all Colledges of the Kings Foundation Suppose a Temporal Court over which we have Iurisdiction do give Iudgment in Assize to recover an Office so long as that Iudgment stands in force do you think that we will grant a Mandamus to restore him against whom the Iudgment is given Twisden In all Eleemosinary things there are Visitors appointed either by Law or by Creation of the party Hales The Frée-Chappels of Windsor and Wolverhampton are not of Spiritual Iurisdiction Hales At this rate we should examine all Deprivations Suspensions Elections c. and by the 13 of the Qu. the Laws of the Vniversity are confirmed Hales We ought not to grant a Mandamus where there is a Visitor but in this case the Visitor hath given Sentence Mors Sluce A Trial at Bar. An Action upon the case was brought against a Master of a Ship who had taken in Goods to Transport them beyond Sea for that he so negligently kept them that they were stolen away whilst the Ship lay in the River of Thames Maynard insisted upon it that the Master was not chargeable say they he is chargeable whilest he is here but when he is gone out of the Realm he is not chargeable though the Goods be taken from him Which distinction he said had no foundation in Law Hales It will lye upon you that are for the Defendants to shew a difference betwixt a Carrier and a Master of a Ship And it will lye upon you that are for the Plaintiff to shew why the Master of a Ship should be charged for a Robbery committed within the Realm and not for a Pyracy committed at Sea It was urged for the Plaintiff that a Hoy-man and Ferry-man are bound to answer and why not the Master of a Ship The Defendant proved that there was no carelesness nor negligent default in him Maynard He is not chargeable if there be no negligence in him because he is but a Servant the owner takes the Freight Hales He is Exercitor navis If we should let loose the Master the Merchant would not be secure And if we should be too quick upon him it might discourage all Masters so that the consequence of this case is great But the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant the Court for the reasons aforesaid inclining that way Porter Fry EJectione firmae A special Verdict The case was A man deviseth to A. for life the Remainder to one and the Heirs of his body upon condition That if he marry without consent of such and such or dye without Heirs of the body of his Mother that then the Estate shall go to another and his Heirs He marries without their consent and he in the Remainder
enters Mr. Attorney Finch The first question will be whether this Proviso be a Condition or a Limitation 2. Whether notice be requisite in this case or not For the first I take it to be a Limitation and that it must so be expounded and not as a Condition Dyer 10 Eliz. 317. Plowd queres 108. Moor. 312. 29 Eliz. Com. Banc. 1 Leon. Plac. 383. 2 Leon. 581. Poph. 6 7. 1 Roll. Condition 411. and the same case is in Owen's Reports 112. In case of a Devise a Condition must be construed as a Limitation 3 Cro. 388. There seems to be an Authority against me in Mary Portingtons case 10 Rep. in a reason there given but it is an accumulative reason and does not come to the point adjudged I shall insist upon Wellock Hamond's case in Leon. it is reported likewise in Boraston's case 3 Rep. and my Lord Coke says that it doth resolve a Quaere in Dyer 327. so that express words of Condition may by construction in a Will amount to no more then a Limitation The second point is whether he shall be excused for breach of this Condition for want of notice First I shall consider it in respect of the person Secondly I respect of the grounds of notice in any case First in respect of the person now he may be considered in two capacities as an Infant and as a Devisée Now his Infancy cannot excuse him for the Condition was annexed to the Devise expresly because he was an Infant Secondly He is a Purchasor Now if an Infant purchase an Advowson and the Incumbent dye Laps shall incur though he had notice of the death of the Incumbent and there is the same reason in this case where he is Deviseé Thirdly An Infant is bound by all Conditions in Déed though not by Conditions in Law Com. 57. indeed 31 Ass 17. is against it but in Bro. Condition Plac. 114. that case is said to be no Law and Bro. agreeth with Plowd 375. Secondly Consider him as Devisée and then there will be less ground to excuse the want of notice I take it to be a good difference betwixt Lands devised to an Heir upon Condition and Lands devised to a Stranger upon Condition To the Heir notice must be given but not to a Stranger for the Heir is in by Descent and a Title by Law cast upon him And he may very well be supposed to take no notice of a Devise because the Law takes no notice of a Devise to him Now a Stranger as he must needs take notice of the Estate given so he may very well be obliged to take notice of the terms upon which it is given 4 Report 83. As for the grounds and reasons of the Law when notice in any case is requisite and when not First I take it for a rule that every man is bound to take notice when none is bound to give him notice 1 H. 7. 5. 13 H. 7. 9. 5 Rep. Sir Henry Constable's case 3 Leon. Burleigh's case in the Exchequer 1 Cro. 390. Rolls 856. Litt. Sect. 350. My second ground is that where persons are equally privy and concerned there needs no notice Mich. 1649. Leviston's case 1 Leon. 31. 7 Rep. 117. Mallorie's case 14 H. 7. 21. The third consideration ariseth from the circumstances and strict formality of all notice You must not give notice of a Will by word of mouth but you must leave a Copy of it compared 8 Rep. Fraunce's case Now the Infant in Remainder is incapable of observing these circumstances and they being both Strangers are both to take notice at their peril Now to answer Objections one is that the Condition is penal and inflicts a forfeiture of an Estate and that therefore notice ought to be given I say this is rather a declamation then an argument in Law I will put a case where he that is subject to a penalty must give notice to preserve himself Poph. 10. so that penalty or no penalty is not the business but privity or no privity guides the case And Fraunce's case 8 Report was ruled upon the privity not upon the penalty 2 Cro. 56. and a case adjudged in this Court betwixt Lee and Chamberlyne seem against me but they differ from ours and the 1 Cro. a case between Alford and the Communalty of London is an Authority for me Mr. Solicitor North pro Defendente I will not speak much to that point whether it be a Condition or a Limitation I shall relie for that upon Mary Portington's case that express words of Condition cannot be construed to be a Limitation Dyer 127. Now if this be a Condition then the Heir regularly ought to enter which he cannot do in this case because a Remainder is here limited over The Law does interpret Conditions according to the nature and circumstances of the thing and not strictly always according to the Letter I do not observe that in any case the Law suffers a man to incur a forfeiture where he hath not notice or is not in the Law supposed to have notice He cited 2 Cro. 144. Molineux Molineux and Fraunce's case 8 Report He said it was not the intention of the party that the Devisée should be strip'd of his Estate and be never the wiser Saunders Gerard's case is for me of which I have a private report He urged also the case of Curtis Wolverton Dyer 354. and Penant's case 4 Report It is objected That they that are to have the benefit of the Estate ought to take notice I answer the same Objection might be made in Fraunce's case Another reason given to excuse the not-giving of notice is that the Condition imports no more then Nature teacheth but I answer in case the Executor consent it is no matter whether the Grand-mother consent or not And for their Authorities I shall rely upon 1 Cro. 391. and upon Fraunce's case for answering them So he prayed Iudgment for the Defendant Hales All the difference betwixt this case and Fraunce's is that in that case there is an Heir at Law and not in this Now the Chancery is so just as to observe the Civil and Canon Law as to personal Legacies but not as to Land Anonymus AN Action upon the case upon a promise to pay money three months after upon a Bill of Exchange The Defendant pleads non Assumpsit infra sex annos urged that as this promise is laid he ought to have pleaded that the cause of Action did not accrue within six years Sympson Non Assumpsit infra sex annos relates to the time of payment as well as to the promise Hales That cannot be Twisden If I promise to do a thing upon request and the promise were made seven years ago and the request yesterday I cannot plead the Statute but if the request were six years ago it must be pleaded specially viz. that causa actionis was above six years since Bradcat Tower AN Action was brought upon a Charter-party And
she ought not to starve If a woman be of so haughty a stomack that she will chuse to starve rather then submit and be reconciled to her husband let her take her own choise The Law is in no default which doth not provide for such a wife If a man be taken in execution and lye in Prison for Debt neither the Plaintiff at whose suit he is arrested nor the Sheriff who took him is bound to find him Meat Drink or Cloathes but he must live on his own or on the Charity of others and if no man will relieve him let him dye in the name of God says the Law Plow 68. Dive Manningham so say I if a woman who can have no Goods of her own to live on will depart from her husband against his will and will not submit her self unto him let her live on Charity or starve in the name of God for in such case the Law says her evil demeanour brought it upon her and her death ought to be imputed to her own wilfulness As to my Brother Tyrrells Objection it were strange if our Law which gives relief in all cases should send a woman unto another Law or Court to seek remedy to have maintenance I answer It s not sending the wife to another Law but leaving the case to its proper Iurisdiction the case being of Ecclesiastical Conusance Is it any strangeness or disparagement to the Common-Pleas to send a Cut-purse or other Felon taken in the Court to the Kings-Bench to be Indicted or to the Kings-Bench to send a woman to the Common-Pleas to recover her Dower Why is it more strange for the Common Law to send a Woman to the Ordinary to determine differences betwixt her and her husband touching matters of Matrimony then for our Courts at Common Law to write unto the Ordinary to certifie Loyalty of Marriage Bastardy or the like where Issue is joined on these points in the Kings Courts for although the proceeding and process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the names of the Bishops yet these Courts are the Kings Courts and the Law by which they proceed is the Kings Law 5 Rep. 39. Caudries case but the reason in both cases is quia hujusmodi causae cognitio ad forum spectat Ecclesiasticum 30 H. 6. b. Old book of Entries 288. according to that of Bracton lib. 3. fo 107. Stamf. 57. Sunt casus spirituales in quibus Judex secularis non habet cognitionem neque Executionem quia non habet coercionem In his enim casibus spectat cognitio ad Judices Ecclesiasticos qui regunt defendunt sacerdotium Hereunto agrees Cawdries case 5 Rep. 9. As in temporal causes the King by the mouth of his Iudges in his Courts of Iustice determines them by the temporal Law so in causes Ecclesiastical and Spiritual the Conusance whereof belongs not to the Common Law they are decided and determined by the Ecclesiastical Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws And that causes of Matrimony and the differences between husband and wife touching Alimony or maintenance for the wife which are dependant upon or incident unto Matrimony are all of Ecclesiastical and not of secular Conuzance is evident by the Books and Authorities of our Laws de causa Testamentari sicut nec de causa Matrimoniali Curia Regia se non intromittat sed in foro Ecclesiastico debet placitum terminari Bracton lib. 2. cap. 20. fo 7. All causes Testamentary and causes of Matrimony by the Laws and Customs of the Realm do belong to the spiritual Iurisdiction 24 H. 8. cap. 2. The words of the Writ of Prohibition granted in such cases are placita de Catallis debitis quae sunt de Testamento vel Matrimonio spectant ad forum Ecclesiasticum In a suit commenced by a woman against he husband before the Commissioners for Ecclesiastical causes for Alimony a Prohibition was prayed and granted because it is a suit properly to be brought and prosecuted before the Ordinary In which if the party find himself grieved he may have relief by Appeal unto the superiour Court and that he cannot have upon a sentence given in the high Commission Court 1 Cro. 220. Drakes case But 't is objected by my Brother Tyrrell and Twisden that the remedy in the Ecclesiastical Court is not sufficient for if the husband will not obey the Sentence of the Ordinary it is but Excommunication for his Contumacy and will neither feed nor cloath the wife Are the Censures of the holy Mother the Church grown of so little Accompt with us or the separation a communione fidelium become so contemptible as to be slighted with but Excommunication hath our Law provided any remedy so penal or can it give any Iudgment so fearful as this With us the rule is committitur Marescal ' or Prison ' de Fleet. There the Sentence is traditur Satanae which Iudgment is more penal Take him Gaoler till he pay the Debt or take him Devil till he obey the Church And yet their Iudgment is warranted by the rule of St. Paul whom I have delivered unto Satan 1 Cor. 5. 5. whereupon the Coment says Anathema ab ipso Christi corpore quod est Ecclesia recidit Causa 3 quest 4 Cam ' Egell trudam and also Nullus cum Excommunicatis in oratione aut cibo aut potis autesculo communicet nec ave eis dicat Causa 2 quest 3 Can. Excommunicat ' Bracton lib. 5. cap. 23. fo 42. As much is said by our Law and it is to the same effect Excommunicat ' interdicitur omnis actus legitimus Ita quod agere non potest nec aliquem convenire cum ipso nec orare nec loqui nec palam nec abscondite vesci licet The second ground of the Law of Excommunication is the Law of England and it is a ground in the Law of England That he which is accursed shall not maintain any Action Doctor Stu. 11. Where a man is excommunicated by the Law of the Church if he sue any Action real or personal the Tenant or Defendant may plead that he is Excommunicated and demand Iudgment if he shall be answered Lit. 201. the Sentence is set forth at large in the old Statute Book of Magna Charta and is intituled Sententia lata super chartas namely Authoritate Dei patris omnipotentis filii spiritus Sancti Excom̄unicamus Anathematizam a liminibus Sanctae matris Ecclesiae sequestram ' omnes illos c. 12 H. 3. fo 146. He which by the Renunciation is rightfully cut off from the Vnity of the Church and Excommunicate ought to be taken by the whole multitude as a Heathen and a Publican until he be openly reconciled by Penance Act 33. confirm ' per 13 Eliz. cap. and this is grounded on the rule of our blessed Saviour dic ' Ecclesiae And if he neglect to hear the Church let him be as an Heathen and Publican Matt. 18. 17. Shall a
construed to be a gift of the Stuff unto her and I shall not be charged in any Action for it besides consider the inconveniencies which will follow if an Action of Trover should be against the husband for then the husband shall be barred of all those helps which my Brothers who maintain that Opinion have allowed unto him and have made reasons for which an Action of the case should lye against him on the Contract namely the Iurors are to examine and set the price or value and the necessity and fitness of things with relation to the degree of the husband whereby care is taken that the husband have no wrong for in an Action of Trover the Iury cannot examine any of those matters but are to enquire only of the property of the Plaintiff and the Conversion by the Defendant and to give damages according to the value of the Goods and so it shall be in the power of the wife to take up what she pleaseth and to have what she lists without reference unto the degrée or respect to the Estate of her husband and he shall be charged with it nolens volens It is objected that the Iury is to judge what is fit for the Wives degrée that they are trusted with the reasonableness of the price and are to examine the value and also the necessity of the things or Apparel Alas poor man what a Iudicature is set up here to decide the private differences between husband and wife the Wife will have a Velvet Gown and a Satten Petticoat the husband thinks Mohair or Farendon for a Gown and watered Tabby for a Petticoat is as fashionable and fitter for his quality The husband says that a plain Lawn Gorget of 10 s. pleaseth him and suits best with his condition the Wife will have a Flanders Lace or pointed Handkerchief of 40 l. and takes it up at the Exchange A Iury of Mercers Silk-men Sempsters and Exchange-men are very excellent and very indifferent Iudges to decide this controversie It is not for their avail and support to be against the wife that they may put off their brayded Wares to the wife upon trust at their own price and then sue the husband for the money Are not a Iury of Drapers and Milliners bound to favour the Mercer or Exchange-men to day that they may do the like for them to morrow And besides what matter of Fact and of that only the Law hath made Iurors the Iudges is there in the fitness of the Commodities with reference to the degree of the husband and whether this or that thing be the most necessary for the wife The matter of Fact is to find that the wife wanted necessary Apparel and that she bought such and such Wares of the Plaintiff at such a price to cloath her self and leaves the fitness of the one and the reasonableness of the other to the Court for that is matter of Law whereof the Iurors have no Conusance Lessée for life of a House puts his Goods therein makes his Executors and dies whosoever hath the House after his death yet his Executors shall have frée Entry Egress and Regress to carry their Testators Goods out of the House by reasonable time Litt. 69. And this reasonable time shall be adjudged by the discretion of the Iustices before whom the cause depends upon the true state of the matter and not by the Iury Co. super Littleton 56. b. So it is in case of Fines for Admittance Customs and Services if the Question be whether the same be reasonable or not for reasonableness belongs to the knowledge of Law 4 Rep. 27. Hubarts case Lessée for life makes a Lease for years and dies within the term in an Action of Trespass brought by the first Lessor against the Lesseé for years he ought by his Plea to set forth what day his Lessor dyed and at what place where the Land lies and at what day he did leave the possession and so leave it to the discretion of the Court whether he did quit the possession in reasonable time or not 22 E. 4. 18. Soinors case The fitness or necessary of Apparel and the reasonableness of the price shall be judged by the Court upon the circumstance of the matter as the same appears by the Pleadings or is found by the Iury but the Iurors are not Iudges thereof Again there is a twofold necessity necessitas simplex vel absoluta and necessitas qualificata vel convenientiae of a simple or absolute necessity in the case of Apparel or Food for a Feme Covert the Law of the Land takes notice and provides remedy for the wife if the husband refuse or neglect to do it But if it be only necessitas convenientiae whether this or that Apparel this or that meat or drink be most necessary or convenient for any wife the Law makes no person Iudge thereof but the husband himself and in those cases no man is to put his hand betwéen the bone and the flesh I will conclude the general question or first point with the Iudgment of Sr. Thomas Smith in his book of the Common-wealth of England lib. 1. cap. 11. fo 23. The naturallest and first conjunction of two towards the making a further Society of continuance is of the husband and wife each having care of the Family the man to get to travel abroad to defend the wife to save to stay at home and distribute that which is gotten for the nurture of the Children and Family is the first and most natural but primate apparence of one of the best kind of Common-wealths where not one always but sometime and in some things another bears rule which to maintain God hath given to the man greater wit better strength better courage to compell the woman to obey by reason or force and to the woman beauty fair Countenance and sweet words to make the man obey her again for love Thus each obeyeth and commandeth the other and they two together rule the House so long as they remain together in one I wish with all my heart that the women of this age would learn thus to obey and thus to command their husbands so will they want for nothing that is fit and these kind of Flesh-flies shall not suck up or devour their Husbands Estates by illegal tricks I am come now to this particular case as it stands before us on this Record Admit that the husband were chargeable by Law by the Contract of his wife yet Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff upon this Declaration as this Verdict is found First the Declaration is That the Defendant was indebted to the Plaintiff in 90 l. for Wares and Merchandizes by the Plaintiff to him before that time sold and delivered and the Verdict finds that the Wares were not sold and delivered to the Defendant but the same were sold to his wife without his privity or consent So it appears that the Plaintiff hath mistaken his Action upon
cannot deprive us of the benefit of the Common Law and in the Vice-Chancellors Court they proceed by the Civil Law If you allow this demand there will be a failer of Justice for the Defendants being a Corporation cannot be arrested they can make no stipulation the Vice-Chancellors Court cannot issue Distringas's against there Lands nor can they be excommunicated Presidents we find of Corporations suing there as Plaintiffs in which case the afore-mentioned inconvenience does not ensue but none of Actions brought against Corporations Maynard contra Servants to Colledges and Officers of Corporations have been allowed the priviledge of the Vniversity which they could not have in their own right and if in their Masters right a fortiori their Masters shall enjoy it The word persona in the demand will include a Corporation well enough Vaughan Chief Justice Perhaps the words atque confirmat ' c. in the demand of Conisance are not material for the priviledges of the Vniversity are grounded on their Patents which are good in Law whether confirm'd by Parliament or not The word persona does include Corporations 2 Inst 536. per Coke upon the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 7. of Cottages and Inmates A demand of Conisance is not in derogation of the Common Law for the King may by Law grant tenere placita though it may fall out to be in derogation of Westminster-Hall Nor will there be a failer of Justice for when a Corporation is Defendant they make them give Bond and put in Stipulators that they will satisfie the Iudgment and if they do not perform the Condition of their Bond they commit their Bail They have enjoyed these priviledges some hundreds of years ago The rest of the Iudges agreed that the Vniversity ought to have Conisance But Atkyns objected against the form of the demand that the word persona privilegiata cannot comprehend a Corporation in a demand of Conisance howsoever the sense may carry it in an Act of Parliament Ellis Wyndham If neither Schollars nor priviledged persons had been mentioned but an express demand made of Conisance in this particular cause it had then been sufficient and then a fault if it be one in Surplusage and a matter that comes in by way of Preface shall not hurt Atkyns It is not a Preface they lay it as the foundation and ground of their claim The demand was allowed as to matter and form Rogers Danvers DEbt against S. Danvers and D. Danvers Executors of G. Danvers upon a Bond of 100 l. entred into by the Testator The Defendants pleaded that G. Danvers the Testator had acknowledged a Recognisance in the nature of a Statute Staple of 1200 l. to J. S. and that they have no assets ultra c. The Plaintiff replied that D. Danvers one of the Defendants was bound together with the Testator in that Statute to which the Defendants demur Baldwin pro Defendente If this plea were not good we might be doubly charged It is true one of us acknowledged the Statute likewise but in this Action we are sued as Executors And this Statute of 1200 l. was joynt and several so that the Conisee may at his Election either sue the surviving Conisor or the Executors of him that is dead so that the Testators Goods that are in our hands are lyable to this Statute It runs concesserunt se utrumque eorum if it were joynt the charge would survive and then it were against us It is common for Executors upon pleinment administer pleaded to give in Evidence payment of Bonds in which themselves were bound with the Testator and sometimes such persons are made Executors for their security The Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff whereupon he prayed leave to discontinue and had it Amie Andrews ASsumpsit The Plaintiff declares that whereas the Father of the Defendant was endebted to him in 20 l. for Malt sold and promised to pay it that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would bring two Witnesses before a Iustice of Peace who upon their Oaths should depose that the Defendants Father was so endebted to the Plaintiff and promised payment assumed and promised to pay the money then avers that he did bring two Witnesses c. who did swear c. The Defendant pleaded non Assumpsit which being found against him he moved by Sergeant Baldwin in Arrest of Iudgment that the consideration was not lawful because a Iustice of Peace not having power to administer an Oath in this case it is an extrajudicial Oath and consequently unlawful And Vaughan was of Opinion that every Oath not legally administred and taken is within the Statute against prophane swearing And he said it would be of dangerous consequence to countenance these extrajudicial Oaths for that it would tend to the overthrowing of Legal proofs Wyndham Atkins thought it was not a prophane Oath nor within the Statute of King James because it tended to the determining of a controversie And accordingly the Plaintiff had Iudgment Horton Wilson A Prohibition was prayed to stay a Suit in the Spiritual Court commenced by a Proctor for his Fees Vaughan Wyndham No Court can better judge of the Fees that have been due and usual there then themselves Most of their Fees are appointed by constitutions Provincial and they prove them by them A Proctor lately libell'd in the Spiritual Court for his Fees and amongst other things demanded a groat for every Instrument that had been read in the cause the Client pretended that he ought to have but 4 d. for all They gave Sentence for the Defendant the Plaintiff appealed and then a Prohibition was prayed in the Court of Kings Bench. The Opinion of the Court was that the Libell for his Fees was most proper for the Spiritual Court but that because the Plaintiff there demanded a customary Fee that it ought to be determin'd by Law whether such a Fee were customary or no and accordingly they granted a Prohibition in that case It is like the case of a modus for Tythes for whatever ariseth out of the custom of the Kingdom is properly determinable at Common Law But in this case they were of Opinion that the Spiritual Court ought not to be prohibited and therefore granted a Prohibition quoad some other particulars in the Libell which were of temporal cognisance but not as to the suit for Fees Wyndham said if there had been an actual Contract upon the Retainer the Plaintiff ought to have sued at Law Atkyns thought a Prohibition ought to go for the whole Fées he said had no relation to the Iurisdiction of the Spiritual Court nor to the cause in which the Proctor was retain'd No Suit ought to be suffered in the Spiritual Court when the Plaintiff has a remedy at Law as here he might in an Action upon the case for the Retainer is an implied Contract A difference about the grant of the Office of Register in a Bishops Court shall be
is the same imprisonment Serjeant Jones for the Plaintiff took exceptions to this plea as 1. The Court is ill pleaded to be held coram Vicecomite for in a County Court the suitors are Iudges Cr. Jac. 582. and though this Court holdeth plea upon a questus est nobis which is the Kings Writ yet that doth not alter the nature of the Court nor its Iurisdiction Jentleman's case 6 Rep. 11. 2. The Custom of holding this Court de quindecem diebus in quindecem dies is void being not only against Magna Cart. 35. but against the 2 3 Edw. 6. cap. 25. which enacts That no County Court c. shall be longer deferred then one month from Court to Court c. any Usage Custom Statute or Law to the contrary notwithstanding 3. He took these exceptions to the Custom 1. It is absurd that if upon a questus est nobis the party affirm quandam querelam that then c. for a questus est nobis is an Action upon the case and this quaedam querela may be in any other Action though never so remote the plaint ought to be in pursuance of the Writ and so to have been pleaded 2. As this Custom is laid it does not appear that the plaint ought to arise within the Iurisdiction of the Court. 3. It is against the Law that in any inferiour Court a Capias should be awarded before Summons 1 Rolls 563. Seaburn Savaker 2 Rolls 277. placit ' 2. Pasch 16 Jac. Bankes Pembleton The 4th exception to the Declaration was that it does not appear whether this Writ were purchased out of the Chancery of the City of Durham or of that of the County the words ex Cur. Cancellar Dunelm are applicable to either 5. Here is not an averment that the cause of Action did arise within the County Palatine it is said indeed that he was endebted and did assume within the County but it is the contract and cause of the debt that entities the Court there to the Action 6. He says that he did levare quandam querelam but does not say that it was super brevi de questus est nobis nor that it was in placito praedict ' nor makes any application at all of the plaint to the Writ and then the plaint not appearing to be warranted by the Writ and being for above 40 shillings the proceedings are coram non Judice 7. The Sheriffs Warrant is to Arrest si inventus fuerit in balliva tua and it does not appear that the Bayliff had any Bayliwick If the County were divided into several divisions and each Bayliff allotted to a several division this ought to have been shown and that the place where this Arrest was made was within this Bayliffs proper division 8. Of the Defendants own showing the Court was not held according to the Custom alledged viz. de quindecim diebus in 15 dies for the last Court is said to have been held the 12th of March and the next after that on the 26th Turner for the Defendant argued that the imprisonment was lawful To the first exception he said that the Court mention'd in the bar is not a County-Court nor so pleaded it is pleaded as it is Cur ' vocat Cur ' Comitat ' and there were never any Suitors known there to be Iudges It is not to be examined according to the rules of County Courts properly so called for we plead it to be according to the Custom of the County Palatine of Durham which is an exempt Iurisdiction As for the exception to its being held de 15 diebus in 15 dies the answer to the first exception answers this also The Iudges of Assize in Writs of false Iudgment have allowed this Custom and affirm'd Iudgments given in this Court of which we have many Presidents For the third exception concerning the validity of the Custom to the first exception against it he answered that a Bar is good enough if it be to a common intent and the common intent is that the quaedam querela must be pursuant to the questus est nobis and in this case it was so the questus est nobis and the precept upon which the Plaintiff was arrested are both in an Action of the case upon a promise And to the second that the cause of Action is shown to arise within the Iurisdiction for the promise which is the ground of this Action is said to have been made infra Comitat Palatin To the third exception that in inferiour Courts it is illegal to award a Capias before Summons but this Court is in a County Palatine and such Courts are like to the Courts at Westminster and have the same Authority Rowlandson landson Sympson 1 Rolls 801. placito 11. and the Customs of those Courts are as good Warrants for their proceedings as the Custom of the Kings Bench is for their issuing Latitats To the fourth he said it was a forreign intendment to suppose a Court of Chancery in the City of Durham a Court of Equity cannot be by grant and there is no prescription in the City of Durham to hold plea in Equity To the fifth he said the promise was laid to have beén made within the Iurisdiction To the sixth ut supra To the seventh that this Precept was according to the form of all their Precepts in like cases To the eigth that taking both days inclusively there are 15 days But admitting that there were some defect in the proceedings yet since that Court can issue such a Writ as this is it is sufficient to excuse the Officer 10 Rep. the case of the Marshalsey Cur ' This is not a County Court but a Court vocat ' Cur ' Com' and it is within a County Palatine and for both those reasons not in the same degree with other County Courts And though it were a County Court it might by prescription be held before the Sheriff as a Court Baron may by a special prescription be held coram Seneschallo and so it hath béen adjudged in the case of Armyn Appletoft Cr. Jac. 582. there is no such special prescription as there ought to be but a general prescription for a Court Baron and every Court Baron must be prescribed for The County Palatine of Durham is not of late standing like that of Lancaster but is immemorial and a Custom there is of great Authority As to the objection against quandam querelam why it may not be as allowable for a man there to bring a questus est nobis and declare in what plaint he will as it is here to arrest a man and declare against him in any Action But admitting the proceedings irregular yet since the Court can issue a Capias that excuses the Officer in this Action and Iudgment was given for the Defendant Nisi causa c. Term. Pasch 26 Car. II. in Communi Banco Brooking versus Jennings alios THe Plaintiff declared as Executor against the
with the rest to the reason why the warranty is destroyed viz. because the husband takes back as great an Estate as he warranted for then no use can be made of the warranty If a man that has Land and another warrant this Land to one and his heirs and one of them die without heirs the survivor may be vouched without question The husband never was obliged by this warranty but as to him it was meerly nominal for from the very creation of it it was impossible that it should be effectual to any purpose he cited Hob. 124. in Rolls Osburn's case The whole Court agreeing in this Opinion Iudgment was given for the Tenant Term. Trin. 26 Car. II. in Communi Banco Hamond versus Howell c. THe Plaintiff brought an Action of False Imprisonment against the Mayor of London and the Recorder and the whole Court at the Old-baily and the Sheriffs and Gaoler for committing him to prison at a Sessions there held The case was thus some Quakers were indicted for a Riot and the Court directed the Iury if they believed the Evidence to find the Prisoners guilty for that the Fact sworn against them was in Law a Riot which because they refused to do and gave their Verdict against the direction of the Court in matter of Law they committed them They were afterwards discharged upon a Habeas Corpus And one of them brings this Action for the wrongful Commitment Sergeant Maynard moved for the Defendants that they might have longer time to plead for a rule had been made that the Defendants should plead the first day of this Term. The Court declared their Opinions against the Action viz. That no Action will lie against a Iudge for a wrongful Commitment any more then for an erroneous Iudgment Munday the Secondary told the Court that giving the Defendants time to plead countenanced the Action but granting imparlances did not So they had a special imparlance till Michaelmas Term next Atkyns It was never imagined that Iustices of Oyer and Terminer and Gaol-delivery would be questioned in private Actions for what they should do in Execution of their Office if the Law had been taken so the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 5. for pleading the general Issue would have included them as well as Inferiour Officers Birch Lake A Prohibition was granted to the Spiritual Court upon this suggestion that Sir Edward Lake Vicar-general had cited the Plaintiff ex officio to appear and answer to divers Articles The Court said that the citation ex officio was in use when the Oath ex officio was on foot but that is ousted by the 17th of Eliz. If Citations ex officio were allowed they might cite whole Counties without Presentment which would become a trick to get money And the party grieved can have no Action against the Vicar-general being a Iudge and having Iurisdiction of the cause though he mistake his power Per quod c. Anonymus BAron Feme Administrators in the right of the Feme bring an Action of Debt against Baron Feme Administrators likewise in the right of the Feme de bonis non c. of J. S. The Action is for Rent incurred in the Defendants own time and is brought in the debet detinet The Defendants plead fully administred to which the Plaintiffs demurred Serj. Hardes for the Plaintiff said the Action was well brought in the debet detinet for that nothing is Assets but the profits over and above the value of the Rent he cited Hargrave's case 5 Rep. 31. 1 Rolls 603. 2 Cro. 238. Rich Frank. ibid. 411. ibid. 549. 2 Brook 202. 1 Bulstr 22. Moor 566. Poph. 120. though if an Executor be Plaintiff in an Action for Rent incurred after the Testators death he must sue in the detinet only because whatever he recovers is Assets but though an Executor be Plaintiff yet if the Lease were made by himself he must sue in the debet detinet Then the plea of fully administred is not a good plea for he is charged for his own occupation If this plea were admitted he might give in evidence payment of Debts c. for as much as the term is worth and take the profits to his own use and the Lessor be stript of his Rent in Styles Reports 49. in one Josselyn's case this plea was ruled to be ill And of that Opinion the Court was and said that Executors could not waive a Term though if they could they ought to plead it specially for it is naturally in them and prima facie is intended to be of more value then the Rent if it should fall out to be otherwise the Executors shall not be lyable de bonis propriis but must aid themselves by special pleading For the plea they said there was nothing in it and gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Buckly Howard DEbt upon two Bonds the one of 20 l. the other of 40 l. against an Administratrix the Defendant pleaded that the intestate was endebted to the Plaintiff in 250 l. upon a Statute Merchant which Statute is yet in force not cancel'd nor annull'd and that she has not above 40 shillings in Assets besides what will satisfie this Statute The Plaintiff replies that the Statute is burnt with Fire The Defendant demurs And by the Opinions of Wyndham Atkyns Ellis Iustices the Plaintiff had Iudgment For the Defendant by his demurrer has confessed the burning of the Statute which being admitted and agreed upon it is certain that it can never rise up against the Defendant for the Stat. of the 23 Hen. 8. cap. 6. concerning Recognisances in the nature of a Statute-Staple refers to the Statute-Staple viz. that like Execution shall be had and made and under such manner and form as is therein provided the Statute-Staple refers to the Statute-Merchant and that to the Statute of Acton Burnel 13 Ed. 1. which provides that if it be found by the Roll and by the Bill that the Debt was acknowledged and that the day of payment is expired that then c. but if the Statute be burnt it cannot appear that the day of payment is expired and consequently there can be no Execution If the Recognisee will take his Action upon it he must say hic in Cur ' prolat 15 H. 7. 16. Vaughan differ'd in Opinion he said 1. That it is a rule in Law that matter of Record shall not be avoided by matter in pais which rule is manifestly thwarted by this resolution He said it was a matter of Record to both parties and the Plaintiff could not avoid it by such a plea any more then the Defendant could avoid it by any other matter of fact He cited a case where the Obligee voluntarily gave up his Bond to the Obligor and took it from him again by force and put it in suit the Defendant pleaded this special matter and the Court would not allow it but said he might bring his Action of Trespass
Defendant should be charged to the value of the whole personal Estate or only for as much as he converted Serjeant Barrell argued That he ought to be charged for the whole because 1. He is made Executor by the Will and he is thereby compleat Executor before Probate to all intents but bringing of Actions 2. He has possession of the Goods and is chargeable in respect of that 3. He caused some to be sold and paid a Debt which is a sufficient administration There is found to discharge him 1. His refusal before the Ordinary But that being after he had so far intermeddled avails nothing Hensloe's case 9 Co. 37. An Executor de son tort he confessed should not be charged for more then he converted and shall discharge himself by delivering over the rest to the rightful Executor But the case is different of a rightful Executor that has taken upon him the burden of the Will The second thing found to discharge him is the granting of Administration to another but that is void because here is a rightful Executor that has administred in which case the Ordinary has no power to grant Administration Hob. 46. Keble Osbaston's case The third thing found to discharge him is the delivery of the Goods over to the Administrator but that will not avail him for himself became responsible by his having possession and he cannot discharge himself by delivering the Goods over to a stranger that has nothing to do with them If it be objected that by this means two persons will be chargeable in respect of the same Goods I answer that payment by either discharges both Cr. Car. Whitmore Porter's case The Court was of Opinion that the committing of Administration in this case is a mere void act A great inconvenience would ensue if men were allowed to Administer as far as they would themselves and then to set up a beggarly Administrator they would pay themselves their own Debts and deliver the residue of the Estate to one that 's worth nothing and cheat the rest of the Creditors If an Administrator bring an Action it is a good plea to say that the Executor made by the Will has administred Accordingly Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Major Stubbing versus Birde Harrison REsolved that a plea may be a good plea in abatement though it contain matter that goes in bar they relyed upon the case in 10 H. 7. fol. 11. which they said was a case in point and Salkell Skelton's case 2 Rolls Reports and Iudgment was given accordingly Term. Trin. 28 Car. II. in Communi Banco PEr North Chief Iustice if there are Accounts betwéen two Merchants and one of them becomes Bankrupt the course is not to make the other who perhaps upon stating the Accounts is found endebted to the Bankrupt to pay the whole that originally was entrusted to him and to put him for the recovery of what the Bankrupt owes him into the same condition with the rest of the Creditors but to make him pay that only which appears due to Bankrupt on the foot of the Account otherwise it will be for Accounts betwixt them after the time of the others becoming Bankrupt if any such were Wing Jackson TRespass Quare vi armis the Defendant insultum fecit upon the Plaintiff was brought in the County Court and Iudgment there given for the Plaintiff But it was reversed here upon a Writ of false Iudgment because the County Court not being a Court of Record cannot fine the Defendant as he ought to be if the cause go against him because of the vi armis in the Declaration but an Action of Trespass without those words will lie in the County Court well enough Anonymus A Vicar libell'd in the Spiritual Court for Tythes of of young Cattle and surmised that the Defendant was seised of Lands in Middlesex of which Parish he was Vicar and that the Defendant had Common in a great Waste called Sedgemore-Common as belonging to his Land in Middlesex and put his Cattle into the said Common The Defendant prayed a Prohibition for that the Land where the Cattle went was not within the Parish of Middlesex The same Plaintiff libelled against the same Defendant for Tythes of Willow-Faggots who suggests to have a Prohibition the payment of 2 d. a year to the Rector for all Tythes of Willow The same Plaintiff libelled also for Tythes of Sheep The Defendant to have a Prohibition suggests that he took them in to feed after the Corn was reaped pro melioratione agriculturae infra terras arabiles non aliter As for the first of these no Prohibition was granted because of that clause in 2 Edw. 6. whereby it is enacted that Tythes of Cattle feeding in a Waste or Common where the Parish is not certainly known shall be paid to the Parson c. of the Parish where the owner of the Cattle lives For the second they held that a modus to the Rector is a good discharge against the Vicar For the third they held that the Parson ought not to have Tythe of the Corn and Sheep too which make the ground more profitable and to yield more Per quod c. Ingram versus Tothill Ren. REplevin Trevill leased to Ingram for 99 years if Joan Ingram his wife Anthony John Ingram his Sons should so long live rendring an Heriot or 40 shillings to the Lessor and his Assigns at the election of the Lessor his heirs and Assigns after their several deaths successive as they are named in the Indenture Trevill deviseth the Reversion John dyes and then Joan dies and the question was whether or no a Heriot were due to the Devisee upon the death of Joan. The Court agreed that the Avowry was faulty because it does not appear thereby whether Anthony Ingram was alive or not at the time of the distress taken for if he were dead the Lease would be determined North. Though Anthony were alive the Devisee of Trevill could not distrain for the Heriot for that the reservation is to him and his Assigns and although the Election to have the Heriot or 40 shillings given to the Lessor his heirs or Assigns yet that will not help the fault in the reservation Ellis There is another fault in the pleading for it is pleaded that Trevill made his Will in writing but it is not said that he dyed so seized for if the Estate of the Devisor were turned to a right at the time of his death the Will could not operate upon it Also it is said that the Avowant made his Election and that the Plaintiff habuit notitiam of his Election but it is not said by whom notice was given for these causes Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff It was urged likewise against the Avowant that no Heriot could be due in this case because Joan did not die first but the course of succession is interrupted and that a Heriot not being due of
naught for the cause of their justification is that what they did was in executing a Sequestration whereby they were authorized to take into their hands the profits of the Rectory for the reparation of the Chancel Now they ought to avert that they did not take into their hands more than was sufficient for the reparation thereof North. If the Law come to be taken as my Brothers are of Opinion it will make a great step to the giving Ordinaries power to encrease Vicarages For the Parishioners have a right to a Maintenance for one to preach to them Adjornatur Edwards Weeks ACtion upon the case The Plaintiff declares that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would deliver unto him such a Horse promised to deliver to the Plaintiff in lieu thereof another Horse or five pounds upon request and avers that the Plaintiff had delivered to the Defendant the said Horse and had requested him c. The Defendant pleads that the Plaintiff before the Action brought discharged him of that promise but says not how To which the Plaintiff demurred Strode If he had pleaded a discharge before the request made the plea had been good without shewing how he discharged him but after the request once made a verbal request is not sufficient Cr. Car. Langden Stokes 384. 22 Ed. 4. 40. b. Cur̄ acc ' Et judicium pro querente Nisi causa c. Barker Keate EJectione firmae of Land in Castle-acre in Com̄ Norff. The Defendant pleaded not guilty and the issue was found as to part and for the residue there was a special Verdict viz. That Edm Hudson was seized to him and the heirs males of his body the remainder to William Hudson his Brother and the heirs males of his body That Edm. Hudson by Indenture betwixt himself and Thom. Peeps demised to Thom. Peeps from the Feast of St. Michael then last past for six months rendring a Pepper-corn Rent and that afterwards by another Indenture between himself on the one part and Thom. Peeps Edw. Bromley on the other part reciting the said Lease he bargained and sold the Reversion to Tho. Peeps his heirs and assigns to the intent to make him Tenant to the Praecipe in order to the suffering of a Common Recovery in which Edm̄ Bromley was to be the Recoveror and himself the said Edw. Hudson the Vouchee and that this Recovery was to be to the use of Edm̄ Hudson and his heirs c. and the Iury made a special conclusion viz. That if the Court should adjudge that in this Recovery there were a good Tenant to the Praecipe then they found for the Plaintiff if otherwise for the Defendant Serjeant Waller argued that there was no good Tenant to the Praecipe for that Tho. Peeps never was in possession by vertue of the Lease for six months No Entry is found nor no consideration to raise an use All the consideration mentioned is the reservation of a Pepper-corn which is not sufficient for it is to be paid out of the profits of the Land He compared it to Colyer's case 6 Rep. where a sum in gross appointed to be paid by the Devisee gave him an Estate in Fee-simple but a sum to be paid out of the profits of the Land not He cited the Lord Pagett's case Moor. 343. Dyer 10. placito 31. Besides the consideration in our case is a thing of no value being but a single Pepper-corn If an Infant make a Lease for years rendring Rent the Lease is but voidable but if an Infant make a Lease for years rendring a Rose or a Pepper-corn or any such like trifle the Lease is void He cited Fitzherb tit Entry congeable 26. North. When a Tenant for life or years assigns his Estate there needs no consideration in such case the tenure and attendance and the being subject to the ancient forfeiture and the payment of Rent if there were any is sufficient to vest the use in the Assignee but otherwise in case of a Fee-simple When a man is seised in Fee and makes a Lease for years unless he give possession and that the Lessee enter he must raise an Vse But in our case the reservation seems not sufficient to raise an Vse for an Vse must be raised and the Land united to it before a Rent can result out of it Wyndham It being in the case of a common Recovery we must support it if it be possible In Sutton's Hospital's case 10 Rep. 34. a. it is said that the reservation of 12 d. Rent was a sufficient consideration to vest an Vse in the Hospital and a Rent of 12 d. is as inconsiderable a matter in consideration of a great Estate as a Pepper-corn in our case The case in Dyer that has been cited is made a Quaere in the book I think the reservation of a Rent would have changed an Vse at the Common Law and will raise an Vse at this day If a Feoffee to an Vse had made a Feoffment in Fee rendring Rent the feoffment I conceive would have been to the use of the second feoffée and the first Vse destroyed The other two Iustices delivered no Opinion At another day the cause being moved again North said he had looked upon the President quoted out of Sutton's Hospitals case and that there the reservation of a Rent was mentioned in the Deed as a consideration to raise an Vse which he said would perchance make a difference betwixt that case and this But the Court would advise further Bassett Bassett AN Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 600 l. penalty the Condition was That if the above-bounden John Bassett his Heirs or Assigns shall within six months after the death of Mary Bassett his Mother settle upon and assure unto Hopton Bassett as the Council of the said Hopton Bassett learned in the Law shall advise at the Costs and charges of the said Hopton Bassett an Annuity or Rent-charge of twenty pounds per annum payable half-yearly by equal portions from the death of the said Mary during Hopton Bassett's life if he the said Hopton Bassett require the same at the dwelling house of the said John Bassett or if he shall not grant the same if then the said John Bassett shall pay unto Hopton Bassett within the time aforementioned 300 l. then the Obligation to be void The Defendant pleaded that the Plaintiff to wit the said Hopton Bassett had not tendred any Grant of an Annuity within the time of six months after the death of his Mother according to c. the Plaintiff replyed and the Defendant rejoyned But the Council of both sides and the Court agreed that the whole question arose upon the plea in bar Strode for the Defendant The Plaintiff ought to have tendred us a grant of Annuity to be sealed within six months c. and having neglected that he has dispensed with the whole Condition For 1. This is not a dis-junctive Condition but the payment of
Title has closed up the King so as that he ought to take issue and maintain his own Title V. 2 Cr. 651. I say therefore That the Kings declining his own Title and falling upon the others is a departure which is matter of substance and it would make pleading infinite therefore the demurrer in this Case is good 1 Cr. 105. is in point and so is Hobart's Opinion in Digby versus Fitzherbert 103. 104. and though the Iudges are two and two in that Case as it is there reported yet the whole Court agreed it afterwards So that were this a common persons Case I suppose it would be agreed on all hands But it is insisted that this is one of the Kings Prerogatives that when his Title is traversed by the party he may either maintain his own Title against the traverse of the party or traverse the affirmative of the party Pasch pr. C. 243. a. c. Answer It is true this is there reckoned up among many other Prerogatives of the King But first with reverence several of them are judged no Law as that if the King have Title by Lapse and he suffer another to present an Incumbent who dies the King shall yet present is counter-judged 3 Cr. 44. and both that and the next following point too 7 Co. 28. a. Secondly In the same Case fol. 236. there is a good Rule given which we may make use of in our Case viz. the Common Law doth so admeasure the Kings Title and Prerogatives as that they shall not take away nor prejudice any mans Inheritance V. 19 E. 4. 9. 11 H. 4. 37. 13 E. 4. 8. 28 H. 6. 2. 9 H. 4. 6. F. N. B. 152. Now my Brother Wild hath given the true Answer that when the Kings Title appears to the Court upon Record that Record so intitles the King that by his Prerogative he may either defend his own or fall upon the other's Title For in all Cases where the King either by traverse as 24 E. 3. 30. pl. 27. Keil 172. 192. or otherwise as by special demurrer E. 3. Fitz. monst de Faits 172. falls upon a Defendants Title It must be understood that the King is intitled by Record and sometimes it is remembred and mentioned in the Case Fitz. 34. That the King is in as by Office c. But Br. Preg 116. the Kings Attorney doth confess the Law to be so expresly that the King has not this Prerogative but where he is entitled by matter of Record Before 21 Jac. cap. 2. when the Kings Titles was found by any Inquisition or Presentment by virtue of Commissions to find out concealments defective Titles c. he exercised this Prerogative of falling upon and traversing the parties Titles and much to the prejudice of the Subjects whose Titles are often so ancient and obscure as they could not well be made out Now that Statute was made to cure this defect and took away the severity of that Prerogative Ordaining that the King should not sue or impeach any person for his Lands c. unless the Kings Titles had béen duly in charge to that King or Queen Eliz. or had stood insuper of Record within 30 years before the beginning of that Parliament c. Hob. 118. 9. the King takes Issue upon the Defendants Traverse of his Title and could the King do otherwise the mischief would be very great as my Brother observed both to the Patron and Incumbent The Law takes notice of this and had a jealousie that false Titles would be set on foot for the King and therefore 25 Edw. 3. St. 3. Car. 7. 13 R. 2. Car. 1. 4 H. 4. Ca. 22. enables the Ordinary and Incumbent to counterplead the Kings Title and to defend sue and recover against it But a fortiori at Common Law the Patron who by his Endowment had this Inheritance might controvert and Traverse the Kings Title and it is unreasonable and mischievous that the Crowns possessions by Lapse or it may be the meer suggesting a Title for the King should put the Patron to shew and maintain his Title when perhaps his Title is very long consisting of 20 mesne Conveyances and the King may Traverse any one of them Keilway 192. b. Pl. 3. I conclude I think the King ought to have taken Issue and he not doing it the Demurrer is good and that the Defendant ought to have Iudgment Tyrrell contra I am not satisfied but here is a Discontinuance For the Defendant pleads the Appendency of the Church only not the Chappel It is true he traverseth that the Queen was not seized of both I deny what is affirmed that the King by his Presentation of Timothy White and the present Incumbent is out of possession By the Iudgment of reversal 2 Cr. 123. 4. the Law at this day is that he cannot be put out of possession of an Advowson by 20 usurpations A Quare Impedit is an Action of Possession and if he were out of possession how could he bring it As to this Traverse It is a common Erudition that a party shall not depart and that there shall not be a Traverse upon a Traverse But the King is excepted 5 Co. 104. Pl. C. 243. a Br. Petition 22. Prerogatives 59 60 69. 116. It is agreéd where the King is in possession and where he is intitled by matter of Record he may take a Traverse upon a Traverse And there is no Book says that where he is in by matter of Fact he cannot do it Indeed there is some kind of pregnancy at least in the last of those Authorities But I will cite two cases on which I will rely viz. 19 E. 3. Fitz monstr de faits 172. which is our case The King in a Quare Impedit makes Title by reason of Awardship whereby he had the custody of the Mannor to which the Advowson belonged and that the Father dyed seised thereof c. and there is not a word that his Tytle was by matter of Record The Defendant pleads that the Father of a Ward made a Feoffment of the Mannor to him for life and afterwards released all his right c. so that the Father had nothing therein at the time of his death and that after his death he the Defendant enfeoffed two men c. and took back an Estate to himself for 10 years which term yet continues and so it belongs to him to present But he did not shew the release but demurred in Iudgment upon this that he ought not to shew the release and the King departs from his Count and insists upon that which the Defendant had confessed that he had made a Feoffmēt which he having not shewn by the release as he ought to make himself more then Tenant for life was a Forfeiture and therefore the heir had cause to enter and the King in his right and thereupon prays Iudgment and has a Writ to the Bishop Cook 86. 7. 1 Inst 304. b. The other case
the Lady Ann Countess of Newport all that my House called Newport-house and all other my Lands c. in the County of Middlesex for her life And after her death I give and bequeath the premisses to my Grand-child Ann Knollis viz. the Plaintiff and to the heirs of her body Provided always and upon condition that she marry with the consent of my said Wife and the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Manchester or of the major part of them And in case she marry without such consent or happen to dye without Issue Then I give and bequeath it to George Porter viz. the Defendant The Earl dyed Ann the Plaintiff married Charles the Plaintiff she being then about fourteen or fifteen years old without the consent of either of the Trustees And thereupon now a Bill was preferred to be relieved against this Condition and Forfeiture because she had no notice of this Condition and Limitation made to her c. To this the Defendant had demurred but that was over-ruled Afterwards there were several Depositions c. made and testified on each side the effect of which was this On the Plaintiffs part it was proved by several that it was always the Earls intention that the Plaintiff should have this Estate and that they never heard of this purpose to put any Condition upon her and believed that he did not intend to give away the Inheritance from her But that this Clause in the Will was only in terrorem and Cautionary to make her the more obsequious to her Grandmother The two Earls swore that they had no notice of this Clause in the Will but if they had they think it possible such reasons might have been offered as might have induced them to give their consents to the Marriage and that now they do consent to and approve of the same Some proof was made that the Countess of Newport had some design that the Plaintiff should not have this Estate but that the Defendant should have it But at last even she viz. the Countess was reconciled and did declare that she forgave the Plaintiffs Marriage and that she shewed great affection to a Child which the Plaintiff had and directed that when she was dead the Plaintiff and her Child should be let into the possession of the premisses and should enjoy them c. It was proved also that when there had been a Treaty concerning the Marriage betweén my Lord Morpeth and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff would not marry him her Grandmother said she should marry where she would she would take no further care about her the Countess was dead at the time of this Suit It was proved that Mr. Fry was of a good Family and that the Defendant had 5000 l. appointed and provided for him by his Grandfather by the same Will On the Defendants part It was sworn by the said late Countess of Newport viz. In an answer made formerly to a Bill brought against her by the now Defendant for preferring of Testimony which was ordered to be read that the Marriage was private and without her consent and approbation and that she did not conceive it to be a fit and proportionable Marriage he being a younger Brother and having no Estate The like was sworn by the Earl of Portland the said Countesses then Husband and that it appeared she leapt over a Wall by means of a Wheel-Barrow set up against it to go to be married and that as soon as the Trusteés did know of the Marriage they did disavow and dislike it and so declared themselves several times and said That had they had any hint of it they would have prevented it Others swore that the Earl of Portland declared upon the day of her going away That he never consented thereto and that the Countess desired then that he would not do any thing like it and that the Earl of Warwick said He would have lost one of his Arms rather then have consented to the said Marriage On hearing of this Cause before the Master of the Rolls viz. Sir Harbottle Grimstone Baronet the Plaintiff obtained a decretal Order viz. That Anne the Plaintiff and her Heirs should hold the Premisses quietly against the Defendant and his Heirs and that there should be an Injunction perpetual against the Defendant and all claiming under him And now there was an Appeal thereupon and re-hearing before Sir Orlando Bridgman Knight then Lord-Keeper assisted by the two Lord Chief Justices and the Chief Baron before whom it was argued thus Serjeant Maynard The Plaintiff ought not to have relief in this Case The Plaintiffs Mother had a sufficient provision by the Earl of Newport's Care And therefore there is less reason that this Estate should be added to the Daughter The noble Lords the Trusteés when the thing was fresh did disapprove the Marriage however they may consent thereunto now The Devise was to the Plaintiff but in tail and afterwards to the Defendant We disparage not Mr. Fry in blood nor Family But people do not marry for that only but for Recompence and like Fortune There was a publique Fame or Report it is to be presumed of this Will in the house and were there not yet it was against her Duty and against Nature that she should decline asking her Grand-Mothers consent and Mr. Fry in Honour and Conscience ought to have asked it And therefore this practice ought not to receive the least encouragement in Equity 'T is true when there was a Demurrer it was over-ruled because the Bill prayed to be relieved against a Forfeiture for which there might be good cause in Equity But now it does not appear there is any in the Case The Estate is now in the Defendant and that not by any act of his own but by the Devisor and the Plaintiff this is a Limitation not a Condition For my Lord Newport had Sons It is somewhat of the same effect with a Condition though it is not so We have a Title by the Will of the dead and the act of the other party without fraud or other act of us and therefore it ought not to be defeated I take a difference betweén a devise of Land and money For Land is not originally devisable though Money is By the Civil Law and amongst civil Lawyers it has beén made a question Whether there shall be Relief against such a Limitation in a Devise But be that how it will Chattels are small things but a Freéhold setled ought not to be devested thus No man can make a Limitation in his Will better and stronger to disappoint his Devise conditionally than this is made If my Lord Newport had béen alive would he have liked such a practice upon his Grand-daughters as want of Notice In Organ's Case and Sir Julius Caesar's Case there was a Grant to an Infant on condition to pay 10 s. and no Notice given thereof before 't was payable yet because no body was bound to give notice it was adjudged
lay in the River whether it lies or not 85 Action upon the Case upon a Promise on consideration to bring two men to make Oath before two men not authoriz'd by Law to administer an Oath 166 Action against the Coronors of a County Palatine for a false Return the Action laid in Middlesex 198 199 V. Attorney Action upon the Case lies not for suing an Attorney in an inferior Court 209 Action upon the Case for that the Defendant had taken away his Goods and hidden them in such secret places that the Plaintiff could not come at them to take them in Execution adjudged that it does not lie 286 Administrators An Administrator recovers Damages in an Action of Trover and Conversion for Goods of the Intestate taken out of his own possession then his Administration is revoked whether can he now have Execution 62 63 Administrators plead fully administred to an Action of Debt for Rent incurr'd in their own time Which was held to be an ill plea. 185 186 The Action lies against them in the debet detinet for Rent incur'd in their own time ibid. They cannot waive a term for years ibid. Debt upon an Obligation against an Administrator The Defendant pleads a Statute acknowledged by the Intestate to the Plaintiff which Statute is yet in force the Plaintiff replies That it is burnt The Defendant demurs 186 187 A Stranger takes out Administration to a Feme Covert and puts a Bond in Suit the Defendant pleads That the Husband is de jure Administrator to the Wife and is yet alive 231 V. Distribution Annuity An Action lies for an Annuity against the Rector of a Church though the Church be drown'd 200 201 Appearance In an Action brought by Executors some of whom are under age all the Plaintiffs appear by Attorney whether well or no 47 72 276 277 c. Apprentices Vide p. 2. Enditement for exercising a Trade in a Village not having served seven years as an Apprentice 26 An Action of Covenant lies against an Infant Apprentice upon his Indenture of Apprenticeship c. by the custom of London 271 Concerning the Power of the Justices in discharging Masters of their Apprentices Vide 286 287 Whether may a Difference between a Master and an Apprentice be brought originally before the Sessions or not V. 287 Arbitrement and Arbitrators An Award that one of the Parties shall discharge the other from his undertaking to pay a Debt to a third person a good Award 9 The Power of the Arbitrators and of the Umpire cannot concur 15 274 275 The staying of a Cause is implied in referring it to Arbitrators 24 Inter alia arbitratum fuit naught 36 Arrest Attachment for arresting a man upon a Sunday or as he is going to Church 56 Assault and Battery What makes an Assault 3 Justification in an Action of Assault and Battery 168 169 For striking a Horse whereon the Plaintiff rode whereby that Horse ran away with him so that he was thrown down and another Horse ran over him 24 Pleading in an Action of Assault and Battery 36 Assets Assets in equity V. 115. Attachment Against a man for not performing an Award submitted to by Rule of Court 21 V. Arrest Attorney Whether are Attorneys within the Statute against Extortion or not 5 6 If an Attorney be sued time enough to give him two Rules to plead within the Term Judgment may be given 8 Not compellable to put in special Bail 10 Whether can an Attorney of the Kings Bench be debar'd from appearing for his Client in the Court at Stepney 23 24 Ill practices of Attorneys 41 An Attorney ought not to waive his Court 118 An Action lies not against an Attorney for suing in a Cause as Attorney knowing that the Plaintiff has no Cause of Action 209 Audita Querela Can be brought before Judgment enter'd 111 V. 170 Outlawry pleaded in disability 224 Avowry Whether needs he that distrains Cattel for a Rent-Charge set forth in his Avowry that they were Levant and Couchant 63 Exceptions to an Avowry for a Heriot 216 217 The Husband alone may avow for a Rent due to him in right of his Wife 273 B. Bail THree men bring an Action and the Defendant puts in bail at the Suit of four 5 V. Baron and Feme The course of the Court in taking bail 16 The reason of the Law in requiring bail 236 Special bail denied in Battery 2 V. Attorney V. p. 25. Bankrupt A Plaintiff has Judgment and before Execution becomes Bankrupt moved that the money may be brought into Court 93 Accounts between two Merchants and one of them becomes Bankrupt how far shall the other be a Debtor or Creditor 215 Baron and Feme Baron and Feme are sued in Trover and Conversion and the Wife arrested she shall be discharg'd upon common Bail 8 The Husband must pay for the Wives Apparrel unless she elope and he give not order to trust her 9 Whether or no and in what cases the Husband is bound by the Contract of the Wife and in what cases not 124 c. Husband and Wife recover in Action of Debt and have Judgment the Wife dies the Hushand shall have Execution 179 180 V. Tit. Avowry Bar. Judgment in a former Action pleaded in Bar of a second 207 Bastard-Children Orders of Sessions made upon the 18th of Eliz. for the keeping of them by the reputed Fathers 20 Bill of Exchange Needs not be protested on the very day that it becomes due 27 V. Tit. Indebitat assumpsit Borough-English Copyhold Land of the tenure of Borough-English surrendred to the use of another person and his heirs who dies before admittance the Right shall descend to the youngest Son 102 C. Cap. Excommunicatum MIsnosmer cannot be pleaded to a Cap. Excomm for the party has no day in Court 70 Certiorari To remove an Enditement of Robbery whether it removes the Recognizances to appear 41 To remove an Enditement of Murder out of Wales 64 68 Cinque-Ports Hab. Corp. to remove one out of the Cinque-Ports 20 Citation Citation ex officio not according to Law 185 Common Whether may a Corporation prescribe for a common sans number in gross 6 7 Condition That if the Obligor bring in Alice and John Coats when they come to their ages of 21 years c. to give Releases c. these words must be taken respectively 33 The Condition of a Bond for the parties appearance at a certain day and concludes If the party appear then the Condition to be void 35 36 Condition precedent or not 64 An Estate is given by Will upon Condition that if the Devisee marry without the consent of c. then a stranger to enter c. whether is this a Condition or a Limitation 86 c. 300 c. Condition of a Bond is to seal and execute a Release is the Obligor bound to do it without a tender 104 A Bond is dated in March the Condition is to pay money super 28 diem
the Sheriff because he is compellable to let him to bail but this is an Action at the Common Law for a false Return which if it should not be maintainable the design of the Statute would be defrauded for the Plaintiff cannot controll the Sheriff in his taking bail but he may take what persons and what bail he pleaseth and if he should not be chargeable in an Action for not having the body ready the Plaintiff could never have the effect of his Suit and although the Sheriff be chargeable he will be at no prejudice for he may repair his loss by the bail-bond and it is his own fault if he takes not security sufficient to answer the Debt The last clause in the Statute is That if any Sheriff return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se he shall be chargeable to have the body at the day of the Return as he was before c. that if implies a Liberty in the Sheriff not to return a Cepi corpus or reddidit se But notwithstanding by the opinion of North Chief Justice Wyndham Atkyns Justice the Plaintiff was barred Bowles Lassel's case they said was a strong case to govern the point and the return of paratum habeo is in effect no more then if he had the body ready to bring into Court when the Court should command him and it is the common practice only to amerce the Sheriff till he does bring in the body and therefore no Action lies against him for it is not reasonable that he should be twice punished for one Offence and that against the Court only Scroggs delivered no Opinion but Iudgment was given ut sup Cockram Welby ACtion upon the Case against a Sheriff for that he levied such a sum of money upon a Fieri facias at the Suit of the Plaintiff and did not bring the money into Court at the day of the return of the Writ Per quod deterioratus est dampnum habet c. the Defendant pleads the Statute of 21 Jac. of Limitations To which the Plaintiff demurs Serjeant Barrell This Action is within the Statute It ariseth ex quasi contractu Hob. 206. Speak Richard's case It is not grounded on a Record for then nullum tale Recordum would be a good plea which it is not it lies against the Executors of a Sheriff which it would not do if it arose ex maleficio Pemberton This Action is not brought upon the Contract if we had brought an Indebitatus Assumpsit which perhaps would lie then indeed we had grounded our selves upon the Contract and there had been more colour to bring us within the Statute but we have brought an Action upon the case for not having our money here at the day Per quod c. North. An Indebitatus Assumpsit would lie in this case against the Sheriff or his Executor and then the Statute would be pleadable I have known it resolved that the Statute of Limitations is not a good plea against an Attorny that brings an Action for his Fees because they depend upon a Record here and are certain Next Trinity Term the matter being moved again the Court gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff Nisi causa c. if the Fieri facias had been returned then the Action would have beén grounded upon the Record and it is the Sheriffs fault that the Writ is not returned but however the Iudgment in this Court is the foundation of the Action Debt upon the Stat. of 2 Edw. 6. for not setting out Tythes is not within the Stat. for oritur ex maleficio so the ground of this Action is maleficium and the Iudgment here given In both which respects it is not within the Statute of Limitations Barrow Parrot PArrot had married one Judith Barrow an Heiress Sir Herbert Parrot his Father and an ignorant Carpenter by vertue of a dedimus potestatem to them directed took the conusance of a Fine of the said Judith being under age and by Indenture the use was limited to Mr. Parrot and his wife for their two lives the remainder to the Heirs of the Survivor about two years after the wife died without issue and Barrow as heir to her prayed the relief of the Court. Vpon examination it appear'd that Sir Herbert did examine the woman whether she were willing to levy the fine and asked the husband and her whether she were of age or not both answered that she was She afterwards being privately examin'd touching her consent answered as before and that she had no constraint upon her by her husband but she was not there question'd concerning her age Sir Herbert Parrot was not examined in Court upon Oath because he was accused and North said this Court could no more administer an Oath ex Officio then the Spiritual Court could North Wyndham There is a great trust reposed in the Commissioners and they are to inform themselves of the parties age and a voluntary ignorance will not excuse them But Atkyns opposed his being fined he cited Hungates case Mich. 12 Jac. Cam. Stell 12. Cook 122 123. where a Fine by Dedimus was taken of an Infant and because it was not apparent to the Commissioners that the Infant was within age they were in that Court acquitted But North Wyndham Scroggs agreed that the Son should be fined for that he could not possibly be presumed to be ignorant of his Wifes age Atkyns contra But they all agreed that there was no way to set the Fine aside Term. Trin. 29 Car. II. in Communi Banco Searle Long. QUare Impedit against two one of the Defendants appears the other casts an essoyn wherefore he that appear'd had idem dies then he that was essoyn'd appears and the other casts an essoyne Afterward an issued for their not Attachment appearing at the day and so Process continued to the great distress which being return'd and no appearance Iudgment final was ordered to be entred according to the Statute of Marlebr cap. 12. It was moved to have this rule discharged because the party was not summoned neither upon the Attachment nor the great distress and the Sureties returned upon the Process were John Doo Richard Roo an Affidavit was produced of Non-summons and that the Defendant had not put in any Sureties nor knew any such person as John Doo Richard Roo It was objected on the other side that they had notice of the suit for they appeared to the Summons and it appeared that they were guilty of a voluntary delay in that they forched in essoyne and the Stat. of Marlebr is peremptory wherefore they prayed Iudgment Serjeant Maynard for the Defendants If Iudgment be entred against us we have no remedy but by a Writ of Deceit Now in a Writ of Deceit the Sumners and veyors are to be examin'd in Court and this is the Trial in that Action but feigned persons cannot be examined It is a great abuse in the Officers to return such
feigned names The first cause thereof was the ignorance of Sheriffs who being to make a return looked into some Book of Presidents for a form and finding the names of John Doo and Rich. Roo put down for examples made their return accordingly and took no care for true Sumners and true Manucaptors For Non-appearance at the return of the great Distress in a plea of Quare Impedit final Iudgment is to be given and our right bound for ever which ought not to be suffered unless after Process legally served according to the intention of the Statute In a case Mich. 23. of the present King Iudgment was entred in this Court in a plea of Quare impedit upon non-appearance to the great Distress but there the party was summoned and true Summoners returned upon non-appearance an Attachment issued and real Sumners return'd upon that but upon the Distress it was return'd that the Defendants districti fuerunt per bona catalla manucapti per Joh. Doo Rich. Roo and for that cause the Iudgment was vacated Cur ' The design of the Statute of Marlebridge was to have Process duly executed which if it were executed as the Law requires the Tenant could not possibly but have notice of it For if he do not appear upon the Summons an Attachment goes out that is a command to the Sheriff to seize his body and make him give Sureties for his appearance if yet he will not appear then the great distress is awarded that is the Sheriff is commanded to seize the thing in question if he come not in for all this then Iudgment final is to be given Now the issue of this Process being so fatal that the right of the party is concluded by it we ought not to suffer this Process to be changed into a thing of course It is true the Defendant here had notice of the Suit but he had not such notice as the Law does allow him And for his fourching in essoyn the Law allows it him Accordingly the Iudgment was set aside Anonymus FAlse Judgment out of a County Court the Record was vitious throughout and the Iudgment reversed and ordered that the Suitors should be amerced a Mark but the Record was so imperfectly drawn up that it did not appear before whom the Court was held and the County Clark was fined Five pounds for it Cessavit per biennium the Defendant pleads Non-tenure He commenceth his plea quod petenti reddere non debet but concludes in abatement Serjeant Barrell He cannot plead this plea for he has imparled Cur̄ Non-tenure is a plea in bar the conclusion indeed is not good but he shall amend it Barrell Non-tenure is a plea in abatement The difference is betwixt Non-tenure that goes to the tenure as when the Tenant denies that he holds of the demandant but says that he holds of some other person which is a plea in bar and Non-tenure that goes to the Tenancy of the Land as here he pleads that he is not Tenant of the Land and that goes in abatement only The Defendant was ordered to amend his plea. Addison versus Sir John Otway TEnant in tail of Lands in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marleston in the Towns of A. B. C. Tenant in Tail makes a Deed of bargain and sale to J. S. to the intent to make J. S. Tenant to the Praecipe in order to the suffering of a common Recovery of so many Acres in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone Now in those Parishes there are two Towns called Rippon Kirby-Marlestone and the Recovery is suffered of Lands in Rippon Kirby-Marlestone generally all this was found by special Verdict and further that the intention of the parties was that the Lands in question should pass by the said recovery and that the Lands in question are in the Parishes of Rippon Kirby-Marlestone but not within the Townships and that the bargainor had no Lands at all within the said Townships The question was whether the Lands in question should pass by this Recovery or not Shaftoe They will pass The Law makes many strained constructions to support common Recoveries and abates of the exactness that is required in adversary Suits 2 Rolls 67. 5 Rep. Dormer's case Eare Snow Plo. Com. Sir Moyle Finche's case 6 Rep. Cr. Jac. 643. Ferrers Curson In Stork Foxe's case Cr. Jac. 120 121. where two Villes Walton Street were in the Parish of Street and a man having Lands in both levied a Fine of his Lands in Street his Lands in Walton would not pass but there the Conusor had Lands in the Town of Street to satisfie the grant but in our case it is otherwise He cited also Rolls Abridgm Grants 54. Hutton 105. Baker Johnson The Deed of bargain and sale and the Recovery make up in our case but one assurance and construction is to be made of both together as in Cromwells case 2 Report The intention of the parties Rules Fines and Recoveries and the intention of the parties in our case appears in the Deed and is found by the Verdict Rolls Abridgm 19. 2 part Winch. 122. per Hob. Cr. Car. 308. Sir George Symond's case betwixt which last case and ours all the diffreence is that that case is of a Fine and ours of a Common Recovery betwixt which Conveyances as to our purpose there is no difference at all He cited Jones Wait's case Trin 27 Car. 2. in this Court and a case 16 Reg. nunc in B. R. when Hide was Chief Iustice betwixt Thynne Thynne North. The Law has always stuck at new niceties that have been started in cases of Fines and Common Recoveries and has gotten over almost all of them I have not yet seen a case that warrants the case at Bar in all points Nor do I remember an Authority expresly against it and it seems to be within the reason of many former resolutions But we must be cautious how we make a further step Wyndham I think the Lands in question will pass well enough and that the Deed of bargain and sale which leads the uses of the Recovery does sufficiently explain the meaning of the words Rippon Kirby Marlestone in the recovery I do not so much regard the Iuries having found what the parties intention was as I do the Deéd it self in which he expresses his own intention himself and upon that I ground my Opinion Atkyns agreed with Wyndham Indeed when a place is named in legal proceedings we do prima facie intend it of a Ville if nothing appears to the contrary stabitur praesumptio donec probetur in contrarium In this case the Evidence of the thing it self is to the contrary The reason why prima facie we intend it of a Ville is because as to civil purposes the Kingdom is divided into Villes He do not intend it of a Parish because the division of the Kingdom into Parishes is an Ecclesiastical distribution to Spiritual purposes