Kingsmil agreed to this In evidence to the Iury in a replevin brought by I. S. against one Bennet for the taking of beasts and the Defendant made Conusance and he said that Mr. Potts was seised of 6. acres of land and granted a rent charge out of that to one William Pots his son in taile and for rent behinde he avowed and the issue was that the rent did not pass by the grant and Hobert said that in this case the avowant ought to prove that the grantor was seised of 6. acres or more and not of 4. or 5. acres if he will maintain his issue in this case Action upon the case for words he innuendo the Plantiff stole the Tobacco out of his Mrs. shop Finch moved the declaration was not good because he had not averred that there was a communication concerning him before and where the person is incertaine there the innuendo is void Hobert and Winch held that to be good but then Hobert moved that the declaration was not good because he said the Tobacco in his Mrs. shop and had not averred that there was Tobacco there to which also Winch agreed but if he had said that he had stolen Tobacco out of his Mrs. shop such declaration without any averment is good but here the words the had altered the sense and so there ought to be an averment and Winch said that if he had said that he had stole 2 or 3 pound of Tobacco out of his Mrs. house this had been good without any averment for the certainty appears and it was adjourned Trin. 19. Jac. Sir George Stripping in Wast SIir George Stripping brought an action of waste and an estrepment was awarded to the Sheriff of Kent to prohibit him to make waste and the Sheriff returned the writ executed accordingly and now there was an affidavit made to the Court that since the estrepment he had cut down certaine Willowes which grew upon the bank of the River by which a bank fell down and a meadow adjoyning was overflowed and upon this affidavit Davies moved for an attachment against the Defendant for it appears by this affidavit that waste is committed for the cutting of willowes in this case is waste because that they support the bank as if they grew neer a house Hobert and Winch being only present that this is a waste in law but yet no attachment shall be awarded because that this appears only by affidavit and is only the collection of the party and this doth not appear by pleading or by the recorâ— of the Sheriff and Brownlow said that in this case he ought to have a Pond which was granted Maior against two Bayliffs ACtion of false imprisonment was brought by Major against 2 Bayliffs of a corporation who pleaded not guilty and at the nisi prius the Plantiffe was nonsuite and now Serjeant Richardson moved upon the Statute of cap. 5. 7. Iac. for double costs and that upon the very words of the Statute and the question was whether the costs ought to be taxed by this Court or by the Iustices of Assize Hobert said that upon the nonsuite the Iustices of Assize might have commanded the Iury to have taxed the single costs and then the same judge might have doubled them and that within the words of the Stat. but if the judge grants this then upon his certificate the double costs shall be assessed for otherwise the party shall be without any remedy and Brownlow ch Prothonotary agreed with that as to the certificate that this Court shall assesse the Costs and Brownlow had a president according Mich. 19. Jac. Grice against Lee. GRice against Lee in an action upon the case and the Plantiff declared that he being long time before and still is seised in fâ—e of certain messages and lands in Layton Buzard in the County of Bedford and that to these messuages he had a common appendant time beyond memory c. in 600 acres of waste called Layton Heath and had common in 600 acres of wood in Layton aforesaid and that the Defendant had made certaine conney borroughs and which the aforesaid couneys where he had not made any mention of any conneys before eat up the grass and that the Defendant had inclosed the said wood by which the Plantiff had lost the profits and the Defendant as to the digging of the heath for coneys said that E. 3. granted to the Dean and Cannons of Windsor that they and their successors haberent in omnibus terris dominicalibus liberam Warrennam sibi tunc et successor et in posterum conferendam And that the 20. E. 4. the Duke of Suffolk and his wife granted to them the said Mannor of Layton whereof the said Heath is parcel and said that 22. E. 4. it was enacted by Parliament that all charters made by King E. 3. to the Deane and Canons of Windsor shall be good and that the said Deane and Cannons of Windsor being so seised of the Mannor of Layton and of the Heath in the 3. H. 7. erected a free warren and that by mean conveyance the said D. and C. conveyed that to the Defendant and so justified the making of the said coney borroughs by vertue of the charter of E. 3. and as to the 600. acres of wood he justified by the licence of the father of the Plantiff who then was seised of the common and upon these pleas in barre the Plantiff demurred and Serjeant Richardson took exception because that it is not expressy alleadged that hee was seised of the house and land to which the common is appendant at the time of the making of the conney borroughs for he only said that a long time before the erection of the conney borroughs and yet he is seised which immplies that he was seised before and after but not at the time of the warren made and for this he cited the Book of entries where waste was brought and he counted of a lease for life to the Defendant and a grant of the revertion and an attornment of the Tenant and that the Defendant had made waste and ruled to be evil because he had not alleadged that this was after the attornement and so in Stradlings and Morgans case and he cited a judgement 5. Iac in C. B. Adkinson brought an action of trespass against I. S. and declared quod per multos Annos jam preteritos he had exercised marchandize and that the Defendant such a day said of him that he was a Bankrupt and it was adjudged that the declaration was evil because he had not alleadged that he exercised marchandize at the time of the speaking of the words and he said that the cause of the judgement was entered upon the roll and the same case he could shew to the Court and Hobert desired to sâ—e that for he doubted much of the law of the same case to which Winch and Hutton agreed and Richardson said that as to that which may be said that a fee
had said that he took money for ingrossing of Feodaries which is desceit without question that had been actionable but there may not be Couzning without desceit And he cited Boxes case where one said of an Attorney that he was a maintainer of suits and a Champerter action lies for it shall be taken to be a scandal to him in his profession for though an Attorney may maintain suites yet he ought not to be a Champerter and he further said that he who will maintain an action for words ought to be scandalized in his publick profession and he cited a case which was in the Kings Bench Brad against Hay and the Plantiff declared that he was Bailiff to such a one and that he had the buying and the selling of his Corn and that the Defendant said of him that he sold by false measures and adjudged that no action lies for it is not a scandal to him in his publick profession and so 36. Eliz. one said of a Merchant that he kept a false debt book and because he may be a Merchant without a debt book it was ruled that an action doth not lie but if he had said of him that he deceived men by buying and selling these words had been actionable and he said that two things are required to every publick profession science and fidelity and when a man who hath a publick profession is scandalized in either of those an action of the case lies and cited Palmers case of Lincolns Inne he being a Lawyer 't was said to him by one that he had as much Law as a Iackan-apes and adjudged to be actionable for it is a scandal to him in his profession and so Sir Miles Fleetwoods case where he who is Plantiff in this action was Defendant in that he being receiver of the Court of Wards one said to him Mr. deceiver hath Couzned the King and hath dealt falsly with him and adjudged that an action upon the case lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had Couzned him or dealt deceitfully with him but yet because it appears to the Court that he might deal deceitfully and Couzen the King therefore actionable and he cited Birchleys case you have dealt corruptly an action lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had dealt corruptly and here he had said he was a Couzner by the receipt of money which is an express scandal to him in his office Winch accordingly to every office of trust is a condition in Law annexed that he deal honestly and justly and he cited Wingates case in the Kings Bench one said to another is Wingate your Attorney and the other said that he was and the other replied take heed and follow him well for else he will make you throw your purse over your bosome and it was adjudged that an action lies for it is a scandal to him in his profession and it shall be taken as much as if he had said he will make you spend all the money in your purse if you look not the better to him and so applied this to the principal case and in this case judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff in the action if no other cause be shewed before such a day An action upon the case was brought for these words the Plantiff did load a ship of my Fathers with Barley and did steal and Couzned 7. quarters thereof in measure and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that the word Cozned being joyned with the word stole had taken away the force of that and made it but Cozning but Hutton contrary and that it shall be understood that he stole 7. quarters in measure and quantity and Winch seemed to agree and it was adjourned and an other day awarded that an action lies Godfrey Wade Alias Mack-Williams case GOdfrey Wade and others in an ejectione firme and the case upon a special verdict was to this effect Henry Mack-Williams the father was seised of land and being so seised he conveyed that to the use of himself for life the remainder to his wife for life the remainder to the heires of their two bodies engendred the remainder to the heires of the bodie of Mack-Williams the Feoffor and the remainder to his right heirs in fee and he had a son by his wife named Henry and 5. daughters and he died and afterwards the son in the life of his Mother by deed indented leased to White-Head for 31. years rendring rent and afterwards he leavies a fine to the use of himself and his heirs in fee and died and after whose death the Mother suffered a recovery within six moneths in which 4. of their husbands were vouched and the recovery was to the use of the feme for life the remainder to every one of the daughters in fee and the sole doubt was whether the lease made by Henry the son is defeated by this recovery and it was argued by Harvey Serjeant that the lease shall stand good notwithstanding this recovery suffered by the Mother for he said that Henry Mark-Williams being issue in tail and also being heire to the remainder in fee who made this lease by indenture in this case this lease issues as well out of the estate taile as out of the reversion in fee and the fine leavied in the life of his Mother binds and bars the estate taile at the time of the fine and then the lease being drawn out of the reversion in fee which discended to the daughters after the death of their brother this reversion shall be charged with the lease and the recovery had not destroyed that and this case will differ from Capels case for it is agreed if tenant in tail bee the remainder in fee and he in remainder in fee granted a rent charge and after Tenant in tail suffer a recovery by this the rent is destroyed for there he who suffered the recovery was Tenant in tail in possession but in our case when the son had leavied a fine in the life of his Mother by this fine the tail is destroyed and the Mother is become Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct which is only an estate for life in quantity and then though she suffers a recovery yet this doth not destroy the lease made by Tenant in tail when there was also a fine leavied to confirm that Secondly he argued that when the issue in tail in the life of his Mother made a lease for yeares by indenture and then leavied a fine and died and then the Mother being Tenant in tail and joyntress within the Statute of 11. H. 7. as in our case she is and she suffers a recovery and vouches the daughters in reversion and lessee for years enters after the death of the feme by force of 11. H. 7. for lessee for years is a person who may enter within the express words of that Statute which gives entrie to any person
answered that if it is meerly Collateral then it shall not go to the successor of the Bishop but to his executors as if the lessee had covenanted or obliged himself to pay this Herriot to the successor he may not have benefit of this obligation but the executor of the Bishop who was lessor shall have that and so he said that the argument made by Hendon is against him for if it be meerly Collateral then this shall not go to the successor and though the lessee of the Mannor may not have it the Plantiff shall not have a Trover and Conversion as he said before but he held this good by way of reservation for modus conventio vincunt legem and as to that which hath been said that the Herriot is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee himself to this he answered that this is nothing for the payment shall be out of the beasts of the lessee and not out of the beasts of a stranger and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant Rives case SAlmon avowed for a rent charge and he shewed that Sir Robert Rives had a rent charge granted to him and he further shewed a discent of that to the son and heir of Sir Robert and shewed that the rent was behinde unpaid to him viz. to his son and heir and he avowed as Bailiff to the son and exception was taken to the avowry because it is not expresly alleadged in whose time the rent was due whether in the time of the father or in the time of the son for if it is behinde in the time of the father the son may not distrain for that but it was resolved that the avowry was very good for in asmuch that he had shewed that the rent was not paid to the son this implied the rent was due to the son and not to the father An Executor brought a Scire Facias upon a judgement given for the Testator in debt by him and the Defendant would have pleaded the death of the Testator between the verdict and the judgement per Curiam he was not suffered for he may not plead this in a Scire Facias but the Defendant is put to his writ of error In Trespass for beasts taken in London and the Defendant justified to taking as a distress upon a lease of land in Kent and the Plantiff replied that the Defendant sold the beasts in London and so not a good plea to bring the Trial out of Kent and to have that tried in London which note Batterseys case AN action upon the case was brought against one Hordecre upon an assumpsit and he declared that the Defendant had arrested one Battersey by vertue of a Commission of Rebellion out of the Cinque ports and that the Plantiff keeping a Common Inne the Defendant brought the said Battersey to his Inne and requested the Plantiff to keep him a day and a night and promised in consideration there upon that he would save him harmless and he shewed that he kept the prisoner accordingly and that the said Battersey brought an action of false imprisonment against him and recovered against him upon which the action accrewed and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed that the said Battersey was lawfully arrested and imprisoned and then if a man will without cause arrest a man and promise in this case no action will lie for it is no consideration because that the imprisonment is unlawful but Hobert chief Iustice Hutton and Winch contrary for be the imprisonment lawful or not lawful he might not take notice of that as if I request another man to enter into another mans ground and in my name to drive out the beasts and impound them and promise to save him harmless this is a good assumpsit and yet the act is Tortious but by Hutton where the act appears in it self to be unlawful there it is otherwise as if I request you to beat another and promise to save you harmless this assumpsit is not good for the act appears in it self to be unlawful but otherwise it is as in our case when the act stands indifferent but Hobert said it may be there is a difference between a publick officer and a private man for if the Sheriff arrest a man unlawfully and promise as before this is a good assumpsit but perchance otherwise of a private man as here but in the principal case the Defendant had pleaded non assumpsit and this implies a Lawful imprisonment for otherwise the Defendant might have given the unlawful imprisonment in evidence and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Claworthy against Mitchel CLaworthy against Mitchel in a replevin the Defendant avowed for a rent and shewed that his father was seised and let for years rendring rent and he died and that the reversion descended to him and for rent behinde he avowed in barre of which avowry the Plantiff said that the father devised the reversion to another and the other maintained his avowry and traversed the devise and it was found that the devise was only of two parties and not of the third part for in very truth the land was holden by Knights service and all this was found by special verdict and for whom the jury had found was the question and it was argued by Hendon that this verdict is found for the avowant and he vouched 32. H. 8. Brook issue 8. in a precipe quod reddat if the issue be whether A. and B. infeoffed the Tenant and it is found that A. infeoffed him but not that A. and B. infeoffed him the issue is found against the Tenant see 14. E. 4. and Dyer 260. in debt upon a lease for years of divers parcels of land and upon non demisit pleaded it is found quod demisit all except one parcel this is found for the Plantiff and â—rin 15. Iac. Rot. 2022. Allen against Soper in a replevin for a horse and avowed for damage fesant and the Defendant claimed Common for his beasts Levant and Couchant upon his land and some in this case were found Levant and Couchant and others not and it was found against the Plantiff and he said in this case when the Defendant had alleadged a devise of all the land and upon this issue is joyned and it is found that part is devised and not all this is found against the Plantiff because the issue is joyned upon a particular and a special point whether all was devised or no and yet he agreed that upon a general issue as in trespass in 20. acres of land and the Defendant is found guilty but only in one yet the Plantiff shall have judgement but not where the issue is joyned upon a particular point as here but admitting that the Plantiff shall have judgement yet the avowant shall have return
reason the factor may sell the goods without ready money and this is good reason for perchance the goods are of that nature that they will not keep without perishing by which clearly it appears that if I deliver goods to another to Merchandise and to sell he may sell them without ready money but if my factor or Bailiff will sell them to one which he knows wâ—ll prove a Bankrupt without ready money this is not good but secondly he held the custome as it is here alledged not to be good for then the partie shall have no remedy for his money except the factor will go into Spain and sue the Bill and the laws of Merchants are special laws for their benefit and not for their prejudice and this custome as it is alledged is too large but if he had alledged that such Bill taken by the factor shall be as good and effectual to the Mr. as if it had been taken in his own name this had been good besides the custome is not good for it is alledged to be that when the factor had delivered the Bill to the owner of the goods this shall be a discharge to him who was the factor and here is no time set within which this may be delivered and so for ought is shewed it may be delivered 10. years after which may be good and to that which had been said that the laws of Merchants are national laws he denied that for every Kingdome had its proper and peculiar laws and though this is the law of Spain and national to them yet this ought to be reasonable or else it shall not binde and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Hobert and Winch being only present It was ruled that he who had land in a parish who did not inhabit there shall be chargable to the reparation of the Church but not to the buying of ornaments of the Church for that shall be levied of the goods of the parishioners and not of their lands by Sir Henry Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged In trespas the Defendant pleads that one such was possessed of a term for years and bring so possessed by his last will and Testament devised that to the Defendant and died after whose death the Defendant entered and was possessed by vertue of the devisee upon which plea the Plantiff demurred generally and Hutton thought this plea prima facie to be good though the Defendant had not expresly alledged that the devisee died possessed but his plea implies that for he had said that he entered by vertue of the devisee and was possessed and this only matter of form and not matter of substance and no cause of general demurrer which Winch also granted that this was also matter of form and not matter of substance Gage against Johnson for his fees GAge brought an action against Iohnson as his servant and Solicitor to the Defendant in a suit in the Kings Bench taking for every Term 3. s. 4 d. for his fees and for this he brought his action of debt and Serjeant Hitcham moved in arrest of judgement and he urged the case of Samuel Leech an Attourney of this Court in an action upon the case brought by him upon a promise to pay so much for the solliciting of a cause of the Defendant and the opinion was that the action will not lie for it is in nature of maintenance for a Solicitor may not lay out money for his Clyent and if an action upon the case will not lie then much less an action of debt and Hobert said that a Councellor may take fees of his Clyent but he may not lay out or expend money for him and the same law of an Attourney for if he did disburse money for him he doubted much what remedy he should have and he further said a servant may follow business for his Mr. and may take money for his labour for if I retain my servant generally he is not bound to follow my suits at law except at his pleasure for that is an extraordinary service and for that if I will say to my servant that if he will follow my business at Westminster I will give him so much for his pains my servant in this case is not without his remedy but if his service is coupled with Soliciting to take money for his pains his opinion was that no action will lie to which the other justices also agreed and they arose Wright against Black before NOw the case of Wright and of Black was moved again and the case was that Wright had brought an action upon the case against Black and Black for that the Defendants intending to make away his good name and to cause him to lose his goods did maliciously and without cause at Norwich in the County of Norfolk prefer a Bill of indictment at the Sessions of peace containing that the Plantiff stole two bundles of fetches and also did cause and entice one I. S. to give in evidence that the indictment was good and true by reason of which he was bound to Answer that at the next Assiles and there he was accquitted and whether the action was maintainable was the question and Attoe argued that the action is maintainable though it is not shewed that the Bill of indictment was found and he vouched a case which was Hill 10. Iac. B. R. Rot. 921. between Whorewood and Cordery and his wife Defendants which case and judgement was after affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error and the case was that the Plantiff declared that the Defendants intending to take away his good name did charge him to have ravished Dorothie Coxe and maliciously exhibited a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff did felloniously ravish the said Dorothie their daughter and did give this in evidence to the Grand jury who found Ignoramus and yet it was adjudged that an action lies and he cited a case the 19. Iac. in B. R. Deney against Ridgy where was only an indictment preferred concerning the stealing of a horse and no more and yet an action lies Hobert chief Iustice said that if seemed to him that it is actionable for this is as great a scandal to give this in evidence to the Grand jury as to publish this upon an Alebench and as the course of Iustice ought not to be stopped so neither ought the good name of man in things which concern his life be taken away without good cause and I have heard that judgement was given another Term for the Plantiff but quere better of that Hoes case HOes seised of land in fee he devised that to his wife for life the remainder of one parcel of that to Thomas his eldest son the remainder of the other parcel to his youngest son in fee and this devised was with proviso that the feme shall pay his legacies and also his will was that in case his wife died before the payment of his debts and legacies
Infant was not bound by this Covenant at the Common Law and no Collateral covenant shall be maintainable upon the Statute for this being against an Infant it shall be taken strictly as a custome that one shall infeoffe yet that custome will not warrant him to lease and release and as to that which had been said that it is incident to every retainer to serve truly and faithfully that is very true and an action upon the case lies upon a covenant in law but not upon the covenant in fact he ought to have Collateral securitie which was also confessed by Hutton and he said moreover that the retainer is for the benefit of the Infant that he learn his Trade but the covenant here is for his disadvantage and for the advantage of his Mr. and for that reason it is void as if an Infant had covenanted to pay 10. l. for the learning of his Trade when his time was up Winch Iustice contrary to that last point for he thought the covenant to be incident to the retainer and good though he is an Infant as an Infant who levyes a fine is also inabled to make an indenture to lead the uses and note that Hutton and Hobert said also that the barre of the Defendant is good viz. the pleading of the want of the certificate and for that reason the replication of the Plantiff that he had 40. s. per annum is evil and though the rejoynder of the Defendant is evil and a departure yet it appears that the Plantiff had not any cause of action and for the covenant they said that they two are strong in their opinions and upon that Winch agreed also that judgement shall be given against the Plantiff and Attoe moved the Court what remedy the Plantiff may have for the loss is 500. l. and per totam â—uriam he shall not have an action of accompt for that lies not against an Infant being an apprentice Coo. 11. 89. and the Court said that as to the retainer and the damage it is no more then if an Infant had been retained by word and there is not any remedy but an action upon the case and Attoe said that they had thought to have brought an action of Trover and conversion and he doubted whether that will lie and after the Court said to him you had best to bring an action upon your case and it was afterwards ordered by Arbitrement Oxford and his wife against Goldington IN a Prohibition for Oxford and his wife against Goldington to the Court of Audience for they are sued there for a legacie devised to the Plantiff by one George Cotton and this is as they are Administrators to one William Cotton who was executor of the said George for that he libelled against the Plantiffs in the Prohibition in the Court of Audience and had shewed that they had goods of the first Testator and a Prohibition was awarded and Finch moved for a consultation and he said if by the spiritual Law an Executor wasts the goods of the Testator and after dies intestate that in this case his Administrator shall answer that viz. the debts and the legacies of the first Testator and Doctor Pope who was present in the Court said that the Law was so and so he said the Common Law was that is the Statute of 31. E. 3. which gives the same remedy against an Administrator as against an Executor if the Executor die intestate for it is the interest of the first Testator upon which the Administrator shall be committed to the next of the Kin and if none will take that upon them then the Administration of the Executor ought and ought to take several letters of Administration for that and if no letters of administration is taken and yet he meet with the goods he shall be charged as an Executor of his own wrong and if no goods be of the first Testators then it is no reason that he should be charged and the Statute of 31. E. 3. gives no remedy per Curiam but against the immediate Administrator and if the case be as you have alledged then the Legatee or the debtee is at no damage or mischief for he may sue the Administrator of the first Testator if he had goods or any other who had goods as Executor of his own wrong and if none will take letters nor yet meddle with the goods then the debtee or the Legatee may take letters of Administration himself and so no consultation was awarded but the Prohibition stood Avis against Gennie and others ONe Avis brought an action of Trespass of his close broken against Gennie and two others and the writ was general but in the the declaration he affirmed that to be in Ayring half a Rood and in digging another half Rood and after in his new assignement shewed that to be a Sellion containing by estimation and acre and it was found for the Plantiff and damages assessed to 20. s. and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Attoe because the new assignement is more large then the declaration and the opinion of the Court was that because this was but an action of Trespas where damages only is to be recovered that this is very good but otherwise it is perthance if that had been in an ejectione firme Brigs case BRigs brought a Prohibition against another and alledged that the Dean and Chapter of D. was seised of the Mannor and the Defendant being Vicar sued to have Tithe in Court Christian and shewed that time beyond memory c. they had held that discharged of Tithes for them and their Tenants and that they let that to the Plantiff and it was moved by Hendon Serjeant that the Dean and the Chapter are a bodie Politique and temporal which are not capable of this prescription in non decimando Coo. 2. the Bishop of Winchesters case Hobert said that the Dean and Chapter are a bodie spiritual and are annexed to the Bishop throughout all England and if the Bishop is capable of that as it is plain he is then the Dean and Chapter is also capable of that which was granted by Hutton but Winch doubted for Winch said he may be a lay man and for that the Plantiff ought to averre that he is a spiritual person Hutton confessed that the Dean may be a lay man as was the Dean of Durham by special licence and dispensation of a King but that is rare and a special case and is not common and general and therefore not to be brought as an example which was also granted by Hobert chief Iustice and upon that day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore the Prohibition shall not be granted Anne Summers case in Dower A Writ of Dower was brought by Anne Summers against the Tenant of the land and he pleaded a fine with proclamations levyed by her husband 14. Iac. in which year the husband died and the wife had not claimed within the Statute
years then this is void by resignation and so is the case of Packhurst that when he resignes during the years of the Commendam the Patron shall have that and not the King and so also my opinion is clear that if he had died within the 6. years limitted by the Commendam that the King shall not have that for then it is void by death and not by the assumption of the Bishoprick which book proves directly that a Commendam may be aswel for years as for life but yet I do not hold that upon those temporary Commendams if the Bishop continued Parson during the years and made no Act to impeach that then is a void cause S. the assumption of the Bishoprick and then when that is determined the supension is determined and it is void by the original cause S. by the assumption of the Bishoprick and this Commendam doth not turn the second or first Patron to any prejudice for the incumbent is still in by the presentation of the Patron and the determination of the Commendam is not any cause of the avoidance of the benefice but this is quasi non causa which is causa stolida as the Logicians do term it but in this case the assumption is the cause of the Cession and it is like to the case of 25. Ed. 3. 47. where the King brought a quare Impedit against the Arch-Bishop of York for a Prebendary vide the case and ruled in that case that the confirmation of the King had not taken away his title to present and the reason was because the confirmation had not filled the Church but continued that full which was full before and here this temporarie Commendam may not restrain the King to present afterwards for this is not a presentation and therefore may not take away the title of the King and here the Plantiff hath not well expressed it for he hath not shewed in this Court that the presentation of the King was lawful neither that Chardon held that by vertue of the Commendam for all the 6. years but only that the Church became void by the Laws of England and that is not sufficient and then if all before were for the Plantiff yet the question is whether he hath lost his turn and I think that he hath omnis argumentatio est à notoribus and the first is better known then the second and the second may not be the first and there when the devise gave him the first it is idle to say that he shall have the second for that departs from the meaning of the words and in every grant the law implies quantum in se est and no man may say that the devisor did intend to warrant that from antient Titles and so the Lord Hobert concluded his argument and said his opinion was that the Plantiff shall be barred and judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Mich. 22. Jac. C.P. Michaelmas Term in the two and twentieth year of King James in the Common Pleas. DAvenport moved for the amendment of a Record where a recovery was suffered of lands in Sutton in the Countie of York and the indenture of bargain and sale was by the right name and the indenture of uses by the right name but the writ of entrie was of the Mannor of Sulton and upon the examination of the parties to be recovery that the recovery was to no other uses then is expressed and mentioned in the said indenture this was to be amended Sheis against Sir Francis Glover SHeis brought an action upon the case against Sir Francis Glover and shewed for the ground of his action that where one Harcourt was bound to the Plantiff in a Recognizance c. upon which the Plantiff took forth an elegit and the Defendant being the Sheriff of the Countie took an inquisition upon that upon which it was extended but he refused to deliver this to the Plantiff but yet he returned that he had delivered that and upon that he brought his Action and upon not guiltie pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Hendon and the reason he shewed was because he laid his action in an improper Countie for though the return was in Middlesex where the Action was brought yet because the land lies in Oxfordshire where the seisin ought to be delivered the place is Local and for that the Action ought to be brought there and now Serjeant Breamston argued that the Action was well brought in Middlesex for this being but a personal thing he may bring that in either of the Counties as 14. Ed. 4. 13. Ed. 4. 19. expresly in the point and to the second objection that had been made that an Averment may not be against the return of the Sheriff to that Breamston answered that in an other Action an Averment may be against the return of the Sheriff though not in the same Action as 5. Ed. 4. but it was agreed to have a new trial by the preservation of the Iustices for otherwise it seemed the opinion of the Court was that the Plantiff shall have judgement upon the reasons urged by Serjeant Breamston Mary Baker against Robert Baker an Infant in Dower MAry Baker brought a writ of Dower against Robert Baker an Infant who did appear by his Gardian and he pleaded that his father who was husband of the demandant was seised of a Messuage and of land in Socage and devised that to the demandant for her joynture in full satisfaction of all Dower and he shewed that after the death of his father the demandant did enter into the said Messuage and land and was seised of that by vertue of the devise and to that the demandant did replie by protestation that he did not devise and for plea confessed the seisin of the husband and her own entrie but she further shewed that the Infant who was then Tenant was but of the age of 14. years and that she entred as Gardian in Socage to the Infant and disagreed to accept of that by vertue of the devise and traversed the entire and the agreement and it was said by the Court that his bar is good though it had been more pregnant to have alledged that she entred virtute legationis praedictae and so was seised and after it was said that the Replication was very good without the traverse for this was not expresly set down but that was but meerly the consequence of the plea which in veritie was not traversable Hickman against Sir William Fish HIckman had judgement for 600. l. and 10. l. damages against Sir William Fish and he acknowledged satisfaction for 410. l. of the said debt and damages and after there was an agreement between them that if Sir William did not pay the residue by such a day that then it should be lawful for Hickman to take out execution against the said Fish without suing of any scire facias though it was after
TERM In the 19. of KING JAMES in COMMON BENCH Easter Term. 19. Jac. IT was said by Warberton Iustice that in the time when Anderson was chief Justice of this Court that it was adjudged that where a Coppiholder alleadged a custom within a Mannor to be that every Coppiholder may cut trees at his pleasure that this custome is against common Law and also his opinion was that where a custome was alleadged to be that if a Tenant in antient Demesne devise his land to another without other words expressing his intent that the devisee shall have the fee simple Hobert inclined to this opinion and by Hutton and Winch he shall have fee by the custome and accordingly it was adjudged Norton against Lakins Ent. Hill Jac. NOrton against Lakins Ent. Hill 18. Jac. in debt upon an obligation the condition was to stand to the arbitrement of J. S. and the Defendant pleaded that he made no arbitrement the Plantiff shewed the award and the breach And the case in effect was that the Plantiff and the Defendant put themselves upon the arbitrement of J. S. of all matters between them till the first of March 18. Iac. and he made an award that each shall release to the other matters and differences between them till the ninth day of March 18. Jac. and it was argued by Serjeant Henden that the award is void for by their release the obligation upon which this action is brought is discharged but it was ruled to be a good award for though it shall be void for that part of the award yet it shall be good for the rest but Winch doubted of the case Reynolds against Poole Ent. Hill 18. Jac. Rot. 641. REynolds against Pool Ent. Hill 18. Iac. Rot. 641. Reynolds libelled in the spiritual Court against Pool for the Tithes of a Park and Pool prayed to have a prohibition and he shewed that he and all those whose estate he had in the Park had held this as a Park till the 11. of Eliz. at which time it was disparked and that time beyond memory c. the occupiers had used to pay to the vicar of the parish a Buck in Summer and a doe in winter in lieu and satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Vicar And it was argued by Serjeant Henden that this is not a sufficient cause to grant a prohibition because that now the Park is destroyed and sowed and so the prescription fails for it was annexed to the Park secondly the question is for the Tithes of corn and those do appertain to the Parson and not to the Vicar and he cited a case between Hawk and Collins in this Court there the prescription was that he and all those whose estate he had had used to pay to the Vicar a certain thing in leâ—u and satisfaction of all Tithes due to the Parson and for this a prohibition was denyed Sherley he had preserved that he had used to pay this to the Vicar and this shall be intended for Tithes due to the Vicar and not to the Parson Serjeant Ashley to the contrary and that the prescription is good for this extends to the soyle and not to the Park Hobert said that Tithes of corn are sometime payable to the Vicar and not alwayes to the Parson for put the case that at the time of the derivation of the Vicarage out of the Parsonage the composition was that the Vicar shall have the Tithes of that Park in thâ—s case by reason of such general terms he shall have the Tithe of hay corn deer or any other thing which grows in that And the composition being made before time of memory no man can say but that it was made in such manner and the case of Okenden Cowper in this Court in which the Court was divided differed from this case for there the prescription was to pay a Buck arising and coming out of the Park and there was no deer left in the Park and Hutton agreed for there he destroyed his own prescription and he agreed with Bracies case put after for there was a contrariety in the prescription Warberton the case of Bracie in this Court was that the Parson libelled against him for the Tithe of corn where this was due to the Vicar and not to the Parson and denyed him for that reason for he may not plead the title of another man and the Parson and the Vicar ought to agree among themselves but in our case no Tithes are to be set out and for that reason he may plead this but it seems to me that the prescription shall go to the soyle and not to the Park when it is destroyed he shall pay Tithes in kind as a garden or an orchard so long as it is used as a garden or an orchard that the occupier of that shall pay a peny now if this be ploughed and converted to other use he shall pay Tithes in kinde and Hobert agreed to the case of the garden or orchard for the penny is paid for the herbs or fruite Winch was absent and Hutton said that the prescription shall go to the soyle and the Vicar by prescription may have the herbs of the glbe of the Parson Hobert the Park is only an appellation or name of land and this name or appellation may not pay Tithes but the land it self and put the case that a man had al-wayes paid 10. s. for the Tithes of a meadow and after he sowed that with corn here for the payment of this 10. s. he is discharged Warberton I deny the case of the meadow and so it was adjorned Bartlet against Bartlet Trin Jac. Rot. 1784. TR. 18. Iac. Rot. 1784. Richard Bartlet brought an action upon the case against Thomas Bartlet and he declared upon an accompt and shewed that the Defendant was found in arrerages in 20. l. which he promised to pay when he should be requested and now the Plantiff had not laid any day or place of request in his declaration and Ashley moved in arrest of Iudgement that the declaration is not good for the request is also parcel of the promise but Hobbert chief Iustice said that when a man brings an action upon the case for a thing which was originally a debt the Plantiff need not lay any time or place of the request but when the action is brought for a Collateral thing there he ought to lay a day and place of the request and so it was adjudged according in the same case King against Bowen Ent. Trin. Jac. Rot. 1755. KIng againk Bowen entered Tr. 18. Iac. Rot. 1755. William King brought an action upon the case against Iohn Bowen for these slanderous words spoken of him King is a false foresworn knave and took a false oath against me at a commission at Witham and the Defendant Iustified the words and it was found for the Plantiff and Henden said that it had been alleadged in arrest of Iudgement that the words are not actionable and he said
a legal signification it shall not be taken but in the better sense for the small pox but Warberton said that if one say of another that he is laid of the pox an action lyes for it is intended the french pox and Winch said that those actions of slander were known to law but of late times and for that 26. H. 8. it was thought that an action would not lye for calling another thief and in the principal case judgement was commanded to be entered quod Querens capiat nihil per brevem suum and note that I saw Hobert shew presidents to Winch in a paper which were delivered to him by the Plantiff and drawn by his Councel and he said to Winch that by those it seemed that in the Kings Bench they made a difference between for and and as had been said before and he marvailed much at that In a Capias Ulagatum before judgement the Sherif returned that I. S. and I. N. rescoused the party c. and Attoe moved that the retorn was not good for there ought to be additions by which they may be sued to the outlawry but Hobert and the Court hold this to be good without addition for no statute nor book will compel the Sheriff to give additions in this case And it was said that if the Sheriff in this case retorn that the party himself simul cum I. S. and I. N. made the rescouse that this is not good but in the principal case it was ruled that the return was good and the rescousers which were present were committed to the fleet Homan and Hull were rescousers Vpon the reading of the record the case was that an executor brought an action against one upon a promise made to the Testator in which the executor was nonsuite and 3. l. costs given against him and the Defendant bruught an action of debt upon that recovery against the executors and upon this it was demurred in law and Serjeant Towse said that there are two causes of the demurrer first whether the Defendant shall be charged as executor and is not named executor and secondly whether upon the nonsuite of an executor the Defendant shall have costs by the statute of the 23. H. 8. Hobert chief Iustice said to him you say well Note that it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that if a man dies intestate and he to whom the Administration appertaines is sued by others which pretend to be Administrators and sentence is given against the right Administrator and costs given against him the costs shall not be of the proper goods of the Administrator but of the goods of the intestate as the costs which are spent in the spiritual Court for the provate of a Testament shall be only of the goods of the Testator Hutton if the Legatee sue in the spiritual Court for a Legacy and recovers the costs which he shall recover shall not be of his own goods but of the goods of the Testator and no prohibition shall be granted for any such sentence given in the spiritual Court Hobert to the contrary for if by such means the goods of the Testator are so wasted that the debts and legacies of the Testator may not be discharged a prohibition shall be granted and in every case where the sentence in the spiritual Court crosseth the common law a prohibition lyes and he said that in the case of one Barrow in this Court it was his opinion and the opinion of the rest of the judges that if Administration be committed by force of 21. H. 8. and the Administrator pay all the debts and Legacies that in this case the ordinary had not power to dispose of the rest of the goods to the children of the intestate but they shall remain to the Administrator and that by the very intention of the Statute of 21. H. 8. but Hendon said that he could shew a president of that and the Court desired that they might see that if any such president were LLewellings case VPon the reading of a Record in the case of LLewelling the condition of the obligation was that the obligor should surrender his Copihold land to the use of the obligee and he pleaded that he had surrendered that and upon that plea the Plantiff demurred and it was adjudged upon the opening of the case by Warberton and Hutton being only present in the Court that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for the plea in barre is not good because the Defendant had not shewed when the Court of the Lord was holden Duncombe against the Vniversity of Oxford In a Qu. Impedit in which Duncombe and others were Plantiffs who were grantees of the King against the University of Oxford and the case was Hill 18. Jac. that Sir Richard weston was seised of an advowson in grosse inter alia and was convict of recusancy and a Commission issued to seise two parts of his land and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiffs and the Church became void and they presented and were disturbed by the University of Oxford and their Clark upon which they brought a Qu. Impedit upon which a demurrer was joyned and Serjeant Iones argued for the Plantiff and there was two points in the case first whether an advowson in grosse is given to the King by the Statute of the 28. of Eliz. and the Statute is that the King shall seise the lands tenements hereditaments of such a recusant convict and whether by the same statute an advowson in grosse shall be seised and he held that it shall for though perchance the word lands and Tenements will not carry that being an advowson in grosse yet this word hereditament will carry it to the King by force of the Satute for it appears by dyer 350. that if the King grant an advowson by the name of an hereditament that in this case this will pass the advowson and for that Coke 10. Whistlers case the King by the grant an of hereditament grants an advowson by such words to a common person then by the same reason a common person may grant that to the King by the same words but it may be objected that because an advowson in grosse is not valuable therefore it is not given to the King and upon this doubt upon the Statute of Wills â— H. 8. the question was whether an advowson was devisable by the name de bonis et Cattallis fellon Butler and Bakers case that they are not devisable for it is not valuable but the 4th Iac. between Taverner and Gooch which case may be seen in the new book of entries that an advowson was devisable before the Statute 5. H. 7. 37. it shall be assets 9. H. 6. 55. recovery in value lyes of that but admit that this is only a thing of pleasure for the advancement of a friend yet that shall be given by the Statute to the King But the second
plea for the Plantiff to say that he was seised till the Defendant disseised him absque hoc that C. enfeoffed him and for that reason he ought to traverse the feofment made by B. for the other was but a mean conveyance see Dyer 107. in Trespass the Defendant conveyed to the donee by 5. or 6. discents by dying seised of the estate taile in every of them the Plantiff confessed the intaile and conveyed to him by feofment made by the heir of the donee which was a discontinuance and took traverse to the dying seised of the same feoffor and ruled to bee evil for he ought to traverse the most antient discent 43. H. 3. 7. Secondly it is evil because he had confessed the seisin of E. 6. and the grant by the same King to Wyat and so had confessed and avoyded the seisin of the same King and then the Law will not suppose that E. 6. purchased that again and for that the traverse of his dying seised is evil when he had sufficiently confessed and avoided that before as Dyer 336. in Vernons case a discent was pleaded to the heire from his ancestor the other party said that the ancestor devised that to him absque hoc that this discended to him as son and heire and ruled to be evil for a traverse needs not when he had confessed and avoyded that before Vide 14. H. 8. Sir William Meerings case 26. H. 8. 4. by Fithzherbert but Brook in the abridgement of the same case said that if the traverse is evil then he had waved the plea before and all was evil 7. E. 4. by Littleton for hereby the representation of Queen Eliz. she had gained the inheritance to the Crown and then the traverse being evil he had waved the former plea which was good without traverse and this seisin in the Crown is not answered but by way of argument as here 14. H 6. 17. he ought to traverse absque hoc that he died in his homage 20. E. 4. 5. 35. H. 6. 32. Serjeant Iones to the contrary and as to that which hath been said that the presentment is alleaged to be in jure coronae and the confessing the presentment is a plea by way of argument to which he answered that the record is not so but the seisin of the advowson is alleadged by discent to Elizabeth Queen by force of which she was seised in jure coronae and Iones argued that the traverse is good for every plea in barre ought either to be traversed and denied or confessed and avoided and here that ought to be traversed Dyer 208. 312. in avowry for a rent charge and seisin was alleadged in the grantor of the land in fee and the Plantiff said he was seised in taile he ought to traverse that he was seised in fee and a good traverse Hill 2. Iac. in C. B. Rot. 1921. Edwards against D. it was pleaded that such a man was seised in fee of a rent charge and the other confessed that he was seised in fee and that a long time before he enfeoffed one I. S. there he ought to traverse that he was seised at the time of the grant see the new book of Entryes Tavener and Gooches case in a Qu. Impedit And a note by the Lord Cooke also he said that after the grant there may be an usurpation and so the dying seised in the case of an advowson in gross ought to be traversed â—e 21. E. 4. 1. 20. E. 4. 14. and as to that which hath been said against the protestations he answered it ought to be traversed and for that the rest ought to be taken by protestation and in some cases the conveyance is traversable see Cromwels and Andrews case And so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiff Note that he said that it was adjudged in that Court 2. Iac. in the case of the Bishop of Winchester that two usurpations gaine the advowson from the King And the reason was because the King by an usurpation may gaine an advowson in him out of a Common person and if the King Vsurpe and the right patron present he is remitted Hobert by such usurpation the possession is gained from the King but not the right and note that upon the argument in the principal case by Bawtry and Iones it was ruled by Hobert Warberton and Hutton that if the Defendant do not shew better cause by such a day judgement shall be given against him and Hutton said that he had studied the case and found no doubt but that the traverse is good Winch was absent in the Chancery M. 19. Iac. C. P. IT was moved for a prohibition by Harris Serjeant to the Court of Audience because that the Plantiff was sued there for saying to one thou art a Common Quean and a base Quean and Harris said that a prohibition had been granted in this Court for saying to one that she was a piperly Queen and it was the case of Man against Hucksler and Finch said though the words are not actionable in our Law they are punishable in the spiritual Court for the word Quean in their Law implies as much as whore but Hobert said that this word Quean is not a word of any certain sense and is to all intents and purposes and individuum Vagum and so in certain see more after Note that it was said by Justice Warberton that it was adjudged in the case of one Ablaine of Lincolns Inne that if a man made a lease for years rendering rent and the lessee or a stranger promise upon good consideration to pay the rent that in this case no action upon the case will lye for it is a rent and is a real thing and Hutton Justice being only present agreed this was upon the motion of Finch Serjeant Mic. 43. Eliz. in the Kings Bench in an action upon the case he declared how he let certain land to the Defendant for years in consideration of which the Defendant promised to pay him for the farm aforesaid 20. l. and Hitcham moved that the action will not lye because it appears to be for a rent for which an action of debt lyes but by Gaudy Fenner and Clench it is not a rent but a summe in gross and for that reason because he promised to pay that in the consideration of a lease cleerly an action upon the case lyes but Sir John Walter replyed that a writ of error was brought of this case of Simcocks in the exchequer chamber and the matter in law was assigned for error and it was ruled that no action upon the case will lye for Walmsley said this was a rent for of necessity there ought to be supposed a commutation between the lessor and lessee and that the lessor demanded of the lessee how much he would give for that and then he answered 20. l. this made an entire contract and for that reason an action of debt lyes and not an action upon the case and Savil and
simple shall alwayes be supposed to have continuance if the contrary is not shewed to that he answered that is not so for the book of the 7. H. 7. 8. if in barre of assise the Tenant said that I. S. was seised and gave this is not good because he had not shewed quod fit seisitus existens dedit c. which being in a plea in barre is more strong then in a declaration to prove that a fee shall not be intended to have continuance without an express allegation and so he concluded that the declaration is naught but by Hobert Winch and Hutton it is very good notwithstanding this objection and Winch cited the 13. Eliz. in Ejectione firme where the life of the person was not cleerly alleadged but the declaration only was that the lessor was and yet is seised which was a sufficient averment of the life of the person and so the declaration is good and another exception was taken to the declaration by Hitcham Serjeant because that the Plantiff had declared that the Defendant had made conney borroughs and with the aforesaid conneys had eat up the grass where he had not alleadged any storeing of the coney borroughs before with coneys and then it is impossible they should eat up the grass to the prejudice of the Plantiff but to this it was answered by Serjeant Attoe that though the declaration as to that is naught yet the diging of the coney borroughs is to his prejudice and sufficient to maintaine the action which the Court granted and as to the matter in law Attoe argued for the Plantiff and recited the case to be that E. 3. granted to the Deane and Chapter of Windsor that they shall have free warren in the lands which yet they had not purchased and of which they were not seised at the time whether this is a good grant and shall extend to take effect after the purchase see Buckleys case and be argued that it is not a good grant and he put a difference between a warren and other priviledges which are flowers of the Crown which may be granted infuturo but a warren never was a flower of the Crown and for that reason a grant de bonis et cattallis fellon et fugitivorum may be granted and yet not be in esse at the time of the grant for it is a flower of the Crown and it is said 44. E. 3. 12. that the King may not grant a warren in other mens lands but only in the land of the grantee and upon this he concluded that this grant shall not extend to land after purchased and the rather because it is in the nature of a licence which shall be taken strictly see 21. H. 7. 1. 6. And Hobert chief Iustice said that this word demeans is derived of the French words en son manies and though the Lord of the mannor had the waste in his hands yet he had not the common and as to the confirmation by Ed. 4. they all agreed that this will confirm nothing to him but what was granted by E. 3. himself and then as to the licence pleaded that is of no effect for first the licence is pleaded to be made to one Sir Cha. Haydon and the Defendant did claime under him and this licence was made by the father which will not binde the son who had the land to which the common is appendant after the death of his father for a common may not be extinguished without deed and Hobert and all the Court agreed that the licence of the father will not binde the son and by the Court if nothing is shewed to the contrary within a week judgement shall be given for the Plantiff Davies against Turner DAvies brought a replevin against Turner and he declared of the taking in a place called the Holmes and the Defendant made conusance as bayliff to Sir George Bing for that one Clap held certain land of him by 20. s. rent and suite of Court and for the rent he avowed and alleadged seisin by the hands of Clap the Plantiff said that Chap held 40. acres of land by 9. s. rent fealty and suite of Court absque hoc that he held modo et forma and upon this it was demurred and the single point was this in auowry the Tenant alleadged c. and the question is whether he ought to traverse the tenure or the seisin and it was argued by Henden Serjeant that he ought to traverse the seisin and that the traverse of the tenure is not good and besides here is double matter for the conclusion sounds in barre of the avowry and in abatement of the avowry see a good case 18. H. 6. 6. for the falsness of the quantity of the land and the falsness of the quantity of rent the on goes in barre the other in abatement of the avowry 47. E. 3. 79. 5. H. 6. 4. and affirmed for good law And as to the second point he held the seisin to be traversable and not the tenure and first he said there was a difference between pleading in barre of avowry and in the abatement of the avowry for in barre of the avowry there the seisin is is not traversable by Frowick 21. H. 7. 73. which opinion he held for good law for it is agreed in Bucknels case Co. 9. he may not say that he held of a stranger absque hoc that the avowant was seised but otherwise it is when that goes in abatement of the avowry Secondly he said that the seisin is the principal thing and the principal thing ought to be traversed for if a man had seisin of many services seisin shall never be ayded till the Stat. of magna charta see Bucknels case Cook 9. and here the seisin is the most meterial thing and the most proper see 37. H. 6. Bro. Avowry 76. ne tiendra is no plea for a stranger to the avowry but he ought to answer to the seisin Thirdly the cause for which the seisin is traversable see a notable case per Danby 7. E. 4. 29. for the beginning of the services may be time beyond memory c. and for that reason may not be tried see 20. E. 4. 17. 22. H. 6. 3. 26. H. 6. 25. by Newton he may traverse the tenure Attoe contrary 13. H. 7. 25. to this it was answered that the number Rolle may not be found 5. H. 7. 4. 13. H. 6. 21. 21. H. 7. 22. by Frowick and Kingsmil Harvey to the contrary the case was that the Defendant made conusance as Bayliff to Sir George Bing for this that Chap held a messuage c. by certain rent and by suite of Court and the other said that he held 40. acres by 9. s. and suite of Court absque hoc that he held the messuage and the land modo et forma and he argued that it was a good traverse of the tenure and not double which was granted by Hobert and by Winch being only present and Hobert said true
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
owner had not any remedy and so here he doubted that when the Sheriff made execution whether he shall have any remedy or no and therefore it is good conscience to allow him to take a bond for that before he make execution for otherwise a great inconvenience may insue for perchance after the extent and before the liberate the parties may agree and then the Sheriff shall not have any thing for all his paines which he had taken in the extent which never was the intent of the Statute but it may be objected that in this case the Sheriff may have an action upon the case against the debtee or the conusee if he make such composition I answer yet this is a great hinderance and trouble to the Sheriff to prosecute the suite and it shall be very inconvenient to allow that the Sheriff shall be allowed no other remedy and then for the third point he argued that the Sheriff shall have 12. d. in the pound for the first 100. l. where the bond exceed 100. l. and 6. d. for that which exceeds for otherwise as the case is he shall have nothing at all for the first hundred pounds for the words of the Statute are if the same be above 100. l. then he shall have 6. d. so that 6. d. only shall be taken for that which is above 100. l. and nothing for the first hundred if this construction shall be made and he also remembred the objection made by Hendon and so concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Hobert said cleerly the Sheriff may take a single bill for his fees and that is the ordinary course also he read the Statute of the 29. Eliz. that it shall be lawful to the Sheriff c. and said the words of the Statute made a contract in law for which an action of debt lyes for the Sheriff and he â—â—id to Serjeant Bawtry that the second point will be found to be against him and for the third point that the Sheriff shall have but 6. d. for all in the case the summe exceed 100. l. and so they thought judgement ought to be given for the Defendant and Iustice Winch said that the reason wherefore the summe of 12. d. in the pound is given if that not exceed 100. l. is because that it is as much labour to the Sheriff to execute 100. l. as it is for 500. l. Maps and Maps against Sir Isaac Sidley MApps and Mapps brought an action upon the case against Sir Isaac Sidley upon a promise and shewed that one named Holdish was indebted to the Testator of the Plantiffs in 12. d. upon a bond which became due and that the Defendant in consideration that the Plantiffs will forbear to prosecute a suit upon the same obligation he promised to pay that and the Plantiffs shewed that they had forborn him till such a day c. and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement by Hitcham Serjeant of the King that this declaration is not good for this forbearance ought to be for ever and not a temporary forbearance only for the Defendant by his promise had made the debt his own as if the assumpsit promise had been to forbear to come to my house this ought to be a perpetual forbearance and here the assumpsion of the Defendant amounts to a release in law to the principal and yet he agreed if this had been generally that he had forborn and had not shewed he had forborn ill such a day the declaration had been good Hobert if the promise had been to forbear till such a day there he may sue the dettee if he do not pay it the day and it was adjourned Mich. 19. Jac. Mabies case MAbies case Hobert in Parson Mabies case if I let my rectory excepting my glebe the exception is void for no rectory may be without glebe and the same law of a mannor excepting the demeasnes but he may except parcel of the glebe and good but in pleading the lease of a rectory this shall be taken for the whole rectory and not for parcel Gratwick against Gratwick GRatwick brought a formedon in remainder against Gratwick and the Tenant pleaded that the day of the purchase of the writ and yet he the Plantiff is seised of the moity of the land in demand and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that this is no good plea for he ought to shew of what estate he was seised and he may be seised by vertue of a Statute and he vouched the 39. E. 3. 7. Hobert if he had said that he was seised in his demeasne as of fee or as of freehold this had been good and a seisin by force of a Statute is no seisin at all and Hutton said if Tenant plead entry in part pending the wriâ— he ought to say that he entered and expulsed the other for otherwise it is not good and I conceive that the Court inclined that in the principal case that the plea for the cause aforesaid being of a general seisin was not a good plea. Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke AT another day the case of Sir Edward Grubham and of Sir Edward Cooke was moved againe and it was objected by Ashley that the declaration in the audita querela is not good because he had not shewed the day of the Testee and of the return of the writ execution in certainty but only by process such a day out of the Chancery which is not good but he ought to plead all the record of the extent in special and he offered to shew a president of that and secondly he had not shewed the execution of the liberate by which the land was delivered and so there is no express allegation of a grievance Richardson the presidents in the old book of entries are according to our declaration and Hutton vouched the 9. H. 6. and 39. H. 6 and in an action of debt upon a judgement he needs not recite all the record but he may begin at the judgement and as to the second point they all agreed that the party may have an audita querela before an ouster and yet here the showing that it was delivered to the conuser by the liberate is a sufficient averment of the ouster for it may not be delivered without an ouster and ruled that the Plantiff shall have judgement if the Defendant do not shew other cause by such a day Vpon a Capias Vtlagatum the sheriff returned that the party which was arrested had a protection from Lord Stafford who was a Lord of the Parliamen and it was moved by Serjeant Hitcham that the return was not good for the protection of a Lord of the Parliament is not good in a Capias Utlagatum which concerned the King and by Winch Iustice only present in Court the return is cleerly naught and day was given over to the Sheriff to amend his
return and this was granted by Hobert chief Iustice at another day this Term Peter Vanheath against Turner PEter Vanheath brought an action against Turner and declared upon the custome of Merchants that if any Merchant over the sea deliver money to a factor and make a bill of exchange under his seal and this is subcribed by the Mr. or by any of the company of such Merchants that the Merchant himself or all the company or any one in particular may be charged to pay that and he shewed that one Morgan was factor of the company of which the Defendant was one and that the said Morgan did substitute one Greenway to whom the Plantiff delivered 100. l. upon a bill of exchange to which bill one Bounder being one of the company set to his hand in England and so the action accrewed to the Plantiff The Defendant pleaded nihil debet per legem and upon that the Plantiff demurred in law and the question was whether the Defendant may wage his law and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that he shall not wage his law for this is only an action upon the case and sounds only in nonfesance and here is no privity between the Plantiff and Defendant for the bill was made over the sea and subcribed here in England and he shall not charge the Defendant without a special custome so that it is plaine that it is custome which made the Defendant lyable and if the Defendant do not pay for this no action of debt lyes but only an action upon the case and every plea ought to conclude to the point in action and for that in trover and conversion non culp is a good plea and yet he may traverse the finding for this tends to the issue and is good and so in debt upon a lease for years nihil debet is a good plea or non dimisit for the cause aforesaid but when the plea doth not tend to the point in issue it is otherwise for he ought to traverse that which tends to the point in issue and in our case the Defendant may traverse the custome or give answer to the nonfesance but he shall not wage his law and an action lyes upon this contract against the Mr. for this and so he concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Harris Serjeant contrary this non payment is not a non fesance in the Defendant and here the Defendant may not plead not guilty or non assumpsit for no promise was made and it is a general rule in law that where a man may traverse the conveyance there he shall not wage his law see 5. H. 7. but here the Defendant may not traverse the conveyance Ergo he may wage his law and 5. H. 7. the successor of an Abbot shall have his law of a contract made with his predecessor and he said that the book of the 23. E. 3. is not law Hobert chief Iustice if the Bayliff at the common law make a substitute the substitute is not chargeable but here the custome will bind the law Secondly he laid 2. or 3. Merchants trade over the sea who made a factor there who takes money there and gives a bill and this is subscribed by one of the company that this should bind all or any of the company is not a good custome and the custome of Merchants is part of the common law of this Kingdome of which the judges ought to take notice and if any doubt arise to them about there custome they may send for the Merchants to know there custome as they may send for the Civillians to know there law and he thought that the Defendant ought to be admitted to wage his law for the delivery of the money made a contract in law and as he may have an action of debt so without question he may have an action upon the case and so count upon a promise and then the Defendant may not wage his law Mich. 19. Jac. C. P. Doctor Hunt against Allen. DOctor Hunt brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 100. l. against the heire of Edmond Allen and the condition of the obligation was that whereas the testator Edmond Allen in the first year of the raigne of the King hath given and granted to the Plantiff the presentation to the Church of D. if therefore the said Edmond Alllen from time to time shall make good the said grant from all incumberances made or to be made by him and his heirs that then c. and the grantor dyed and the Church became void and the heire of the grantor presented and whether this was a breach of the Condition was the question and Hobert chief Iustice and Winch being only present thought this tortious presentation to be no breach of the condition but this extends only to lawful disturbance by the heire and by the pleading here it appears that though the heire presented yet he had no right to present because that his father had granted that before and then the presentation of the heire is as a meer stranger And those general words will not extend to a tortious disturbance by the heire but Hobert said that the words shall have such a construction as if it had been said that he shall enjoy the same from any act or acts made by him or his heires and in this case there ought to be a lawful eviction to make a breach of the condition but otherwise if the condition had been that he shall peaceably enjoy from any act or acts made by him or his heires in that case a tortious disturbance would have been a breach of the condition but it was adjorned till another time Information was for that one such his apprentice departed out of his service and the Defendant received and retained him without a testimonial from the Mr. contra formam Statuti And so he demanded 5. l. the Defendant pleaded nihil debet per patriam and it was found against him and now Hendon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that an apprentice is out of the clause of the Statute of the 5th of Elizabeth and that the same Statute extends only to servants and to labourers retained within that Statute for the statute saith be it enacted that no person or persons that depart out of service without shewing of a testimonial as is above remembered and this branch as is above remembered had only reference to the next clause before and the same branch before makes only mention of certaine trades in which an apprentice as in our case is not included and the certificate set down within the Statute proves that an apprentice is not within the Statute for the words are I. W. servant to such a one c. and so it extends to servants and not to apprentices and secondly he said the information is not good because he had not shewed in what trade this apprentice served and perchance he was retained in such a trade as is not
doth not lye for for it is not averred that there was any fellony committed also Iustice Hutton held that in this case the declaration is not good because it is not expresly alleadged with an eo quod that the Plantiff stole the Vetches but only an indictment preferred containing such a matter and Iustice Winch said that the framing of an indictment in a Court of record is not any cause of an action for it is a proceeding in an ordinary Course of justice and for that reason ought not to be punished by an action upon the case for that will deterre and scare men from the just prosecutions in the ordinary way of justice Hobert chief Iustice was of a contrary opinion and yet he said that it is true that the ordinary Course of justice ought not by any means to be hopped or hindred and as that may not be obstructed so neither may the good name of a man in any thing which concerns his life be taken away and impeached without good cause for Courts of justice were not erected to be stages to take away the good name or fame of any man and therefore by the common law if two do maliciously conspire to judict a man without cause though the indictment it self be good and legally drawn yet a writ of conspiracy lies against those which caused this indictment to be preferred and it is as great a slander to preferre a Bill of indictment to the grand jury and to give this in evidence to them as it is to declare that in an ale house and as to the declaration he held that to be good without any averment of an indictment indeed and the indictment in writing and the preferring that to the grand jury containes the scandal and I am of opinion that an action upon the case lyes well see more after Easter 20. Jac. C. P. Hill against Waldron Easter 20. Jac. C. P. HIll against Waldron in an action of debt upon an obligation the condition was that I. S. shall levy a fine to the obligee before such a day of such land the Defendant pleaded that the obligee had not sued forth any writ of covenant the replication was that before the obligation made I. S. had made of feofment in fee of the same land to I. S. and that the feoffee continued in possession at the time of the making of the obligation and upon this the Defendant demurred and in this case two points were moved first when I am obliged that I. S. who is a stranger shall levy a fine to the obligee whether in this case the obligee is bound to sue a writ of covenant and it was argued by Serjeant Harvy that not yet he agreed that if the condition was that the obligor shall levy a fine to the obligee in this case the obligee ought to do the first act viz. to sue a writ of covenant as Palmers case Cooke 5. but otherwise when the fine is levied by a third person for there the obligor had took all upon him 4. H. 7. 15. E. 4. if I am bound to marry the daughter of I. S. and she will not marry me yet I have forfited my obligation and so here he ought to leavy a fine at his perill and at his own costs or at the costs of the obligor But admitting that the obligee ought to sue a writ of covenant because it appears by the replication that before the obligation made I. S. had made a feofment over and that the feoffee did continue possession at the time when the fine was to be leavied and therefore the obligee needs not to sue forth any writ of covenant because he who is to leavy the fine had disabled himself to perform that and he urged Sir Anthony Maines case where Cooke 5. the party needs not to tender a Surrender because that he who had the reversion had granted that over before the Surrender was to be made Serjeant Hendon to the contrary for he argued that the obligation is not forfeit except the obligee sue a writ of covenant and there is no difference between this case and when the obligor himself was to leavy a fine for the obligor had not undertaken for the whole fine but only that I. S. shall acknowledge a fine and if the obligor shall be compelled at his perill to sue a writ of covenant then you will construe the condition to extend to an unlawfull act for it shall be maintenance in him to sue forth a writ of covenant he vouched a case P. 4 Iac. Rot. 1548. Burnell against Bowle the condition of the obligation was that I. S. shall acknowledge a judgement in this Court to I. D. and in debt upon this obligation the Defendant pleaded that the Plantiff had not sued forth any orginall writ and it was holden a good plea and for the second point he held that the obligee ought to sue this writ of Covenant though that I. S. had dismissed himself of the land for the words are general that I. S. shall leavy a fine and this he ought to do though no estate pass by the fine for a fine upon release shall be a good performance of the Condition but otherwise if it had been to make a feofment in fee for a man cannot make a feofment except he be seised of the land at the time as 31. E. 3. debt 164. a man was obliged to present the obligee to such a Church and the obligee took a wife by which he had disabled himself to be a person yet the obligor ought to present him for otherwise he shall forfeit his obligation and so in this case Hobert and Hutton as to the first point held the barre to be good and that the obligee ought to sue forth the writ of Covenant for Hobert said he ought to do that for it is no reason to compel the obligor who is a stranger to the estate which passeth by the fine to sue a writ of Covenant and for that reason if I am bound to compel you to come upon such land to take a feofment I am not bound that the other make a livery of seisin but if the case was that I was obliged to you that I. S. shall leavy a fine to I. N. in such case the fine ought to be leavied at my peril though that I. N. will not sue a writ of Covenant Hutton according but Winch doubted of the case and as to the second point Hutton and Hobert agreed that the obligee as this case is needs not to sue a writ of Covenant because that I. S. had made a feofment of the land before and so had disabled himself at the time of the obligation for now it is impossible to leavy a good fine for if he should enter into the land and put out the feoffee this were not good within the condition and Hutton said it ought to be agreed that if I. S. had made a feofment after the time of the making
who hath an interest and see for that Coo. 3. Lincoln Colledge case and Dyer 148. Thirdly he held that though it should be so that lessee for years may not enter by force of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. yet he may falsifie a recovery by the Statute of the 21. H. 8. which enables lessee for years to falsifie as well as lessee for life and it appears by the verdict that the sole intent of this recovery was to defeat the lease for years for this was suffered within 6. moneths after the death of Henry Mark-Williams the son and also the recovery was to the very same uses which they were before and therefore the lessee may falsifie the recovery it is true in Capels case the lessee of him in remainder may not falsifie a recovery suffered by Tenant in tail though it was suffered of purpose to defeat the lease for years but in our case the lease for years doth not enure by vertue of the estate tail for that is bound by the fine but this issues out of the reversion in fee and for that reason the lessee shall falsifie this recovery in an ejectione firme or in an avowry and he cited Kings case Hill 37. Eliz. B. R. Rot. 293. Tenant in tail infeoffed his son and after he disseâ—sed him and afterward leavied a fine of that with Proclamations the son entered upon the Conusee and made a feofment and the Proclamations passed and the feoffee of the son let for years and then the father and the son died and the issue in tail brought a formedon and recovered and it was agreed that lessee for years may falsifie this recovery and he said that he had seen a Note in Iustice Manwoods Study that it was agreed in his Circuit that lessee for years to begin at a day to come may falsifie a recovery and so be concluded his argument Hendon Serjeant to the contrary and he divided the case in three points First when Tenant in tail had issue a son and a daughter or two sons and the eldest son in the life of his father who is Tenant in tail levies a fine and dies without issue whether this shall binde the youngest son and he thought that it should not and yet he agreed that an estate tail may be barred by a fine though he who leauied the fine was not seised at the time of the estate tail and this by the very words of the Statute of the 32. H. 8. see the case of fines Coo. 3 and Grants case vouched Lampets case and so is the case of Hunt and King 37. Eliz. cited by my brother Harvey and so he agreed cleerly if the son who leavies the fine survives the father who was Tenant in tail that then in this case this binds the estate tail for ever and the reason is upon the very words of the Statute of 32. H. 8. or any was intailed to the Ancestor of the issue in tail and in this case when the issue doth survive the Ancestor and dies this shall binde the issue because it was intailed to him who leavied the fine who was his Ancestor for he may not make any Conveyance to the estate tail except he make mention of him who leavied the fine because that he survived the father who was Tenant in tail but when he who leavies the fine dies in the life of his father viz. the eldest son then the youngest son may convey an estate taile to him without making mention of his eldest brother and this appears by the 46. E. 3. 9. 4. H. 6. 10. 11. H. 7. 6. see the case of Buckner Coo. 8. from which cases he inferred that if the youngest brother may have an action at the Common Law without making mention of his eldest brother then such a construction shall be made of this word Ancestor in the Statute of 32. H. 8. that it shall be taken for such an Ancestor by whom the issue in tail claimes and for no other Ancestor and for this he put the case if land be given to a man and to his heirs females begotten of his body and he had issue a son and a daughter and the son leavied a fine and died this shall barre the estate tail for the cause aforesaid and for authorities in this kinde he cited the reports of Dallison of Eliz. printed at the end of Ashles Tables in Stamfords case in the end of the same case where the very difference is agreed Mich. 29. Jac. C. P. where the eldest son dies in the life of the father and where not and Hobert demanded of him by what warrant those reports of Dallison came in print And then Hendon cited the opinion of some of the judges in the case of Zouch and Banfield and see Coo. 3. the case of fines according to this difference and he said that Sir George Browns case will warrant that in the very letter of it for there it is said that no issue inheritable by force of the tail may enter after the fine by which he inferred that if he is such an issue that is not inheritable he is out of the Statute and so he concluded the first point that the fine being leavied by the eldest son in the life of his Mother that shall not barre the estate tail Secondly he argued that as this case is the feme is not within the Statute of the 11 H. 7. because that at the time when she suffered a recovery she was seised of an estate in general tail by force of the remainder which was limitted to her and her husband and to the heirs of their two bodies ingendred which took effect in the feme at the time of the death of the husband and this being an estate in tail of the purchase of the huband which took effect in remainder this may not be a joynture within the Statute of of the 27. H. 8. and then if she be not a joynteress within that Statute though this estate was of the purchase and of the acquisition of her husband yet this is out of the danger of the Statute of the 11. H. 7. for the words are any woman who had any estate in dower or in tail joynt with her husband of the purchase and of the acquisition of the husband which words of the purchase of the husband had relation to Tenant in dower or to a woman who was a joyntress and was not the intent of the Statute to make such a remainder to be within the danger of the Statute when the husband himself in his life may dock this by a recovery and therefore it is not within the Statute And as to the Third point he argued that admitting that she was a joyntress within the Statute of the 27. H. 8. yet when the feme suffers a recovery with the assent of him in remainder in fee this recovery is out of the body of the Statute of 11. H. 7. any which shall discontinue or release with warranty and
the lessee of the Mannor or to the Bishop was the question and it was argued by Serjeant Hendon that this appertaines to the Plantiff and not to Wood and as to that the single point is a Bishop is seised of a Mannor in the right of his Bishoprick and lets parcel of that for life whether the reversion of this parcel be alwayes parcel of the Mannor notwithstanding this lease and he argued that it was not and yet he agreed that if another let as aforesaid the reversion continues alwayes parcel of a thing in possession and that in the case of the King himself as appears by Dyer 230. if the King lets parcel of a Mannor for life the reversion of this parcel passeth to the King for the reversion had all times continuance in the same capacity and no alteration is made of this by force of the lease but where the lease for life is a discontinuance there he gaines a new reversion and this shall not be parcel of the Mannor and for that if a man is seised of a Mannor in the right of his wife and he lets parcel for life this is a discontinuance and he had gained the reversion in his own right and for that reason the reversion may not be parcel of the Mannor as appears by 18. Assises and also he held if Tenant in taile lets parcel of a Mannor for life that were the reversion of this parcel is not parcel of the Mannor for the cause aforesaid and so in our case when the Bishop granted parcel which is not grantable by the Statute now he had discontinued the reversion and had gained a new fee simple which may not be parcel of the Mannor so long as this new fee simple had a continuance and this was his first reason And secondly he argued from the intent of the parties because the intent was that the lease to Wood shall be good and if the reversion of the 20. acres pass to Wood this will make all the lease void for no rent may be reserved out of the reversion but out of the land it self 3. Assise Placito ultimo a Bishop let land and a hundred rendring rent the rent issues out of the land and not out of the hundred and so here it issues out of the land and not out of the reversion which made the lease all void and so he concluded the first point that the reversion of the 20. acres did not pass to Wood the lessee of the Mannors Secondly when the Bishop lets 20. acres of ground rendring rent and this is not confirmed by the Dean and Chapter as it ought and after he lets the Mannor and the successor accepts the rent of the Mannor this acceptance shall not make the lease of the 20. acres to be good admitting that the reversion do pass and when the Bishop had made a lease for 3. lives he may not contract for the reversion and when a lease is meerly void in the creation there no acceptance afterwards may make that good but admitting this to be against him yet the lessee shall not have the Herriot for they are not appendant to the reversion but due only by way of Covenant and the words are yielding c. and this being a Collateral thing it shall not go with the reversion and the Herriot here may not be had without it be delivered by the lessee for life Secondly it is paid only in the name of a Herriot and this is not Herriot service Thirdly it is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee and all this proves this Herriot to be collateral and he cited Rawlins case a lease for years paying for a fine 20. l. this is a summe in gross and shall not pass with the reversion and so he prayed judgement for the Plantiff Attoe contrary and yet he agreed the case of the husband and wife and of the Tenant in tail for here the lessor gaines a new fee simple but in our case when the Bishop lets for life this is not any wrong for the successor may enter and he shall have this lease not in his natural capacity but alwayes in his politique capacity and for that there is an apparent difference between the cases and for that reason he held that the reversion was parcel of the Mannor and so passed to the lessee and as to that which had been said that the intent of the parties was only that the Mannor in possession and not the parcel in reversion should pass to the lessee for that is most beneficial to the lessor to this he answered that by express words this is granted and no construction shall be made contrary to the very express words of the grant and here though the Defendant had not any title at all to the Herriot yet the Plantiff shall not have a trover and conversion for this because that he himself had not right to this and for that reason judgement shall be given for the Defendant and he also argued that the lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and then the acceptance extends to this see 37. H. 6. the lease of a Priâ—r 2. E. 6. Bâ— Abbots case Vpon which authorities he said cleerly by the Common Law this lease of the reversion is not meerly void but voidable and for that the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter after the Statute of the first of Eliz. had not altered that and for that a lease after the Statute shall not be meerly void and see Lincolns Colledge case Coo. 3. and in our case there is a possibility that the lessee of the Mannor may survive the cestui que vies of the 20. acres and that possibility is sufficient to make this good out of the reversion for then the lessor may distrain for his rent but where no possibility of a distress is there no rent may be reserved as in Iewels case the lease was void for there was no possibility that the lessor shall ever distrain but in our case the lease for years is good for the lessor is not without his remedy for he may have an action of debt upon this reservation 1. H. 4. 2. there a measnalty in gross was let rendring rent and good for by possibility the Tenant may die without heires and yet this is a remote possibility 12. E. 3. execution 112. a reversion granted by fine in tail rendring rent is good and Coo. 5. Elmers case that a reversion being let for life rendring rent is a good reservation at the Common Law and he held without question that where a Bishop is seised of a Mannor which consists part of freeholders and part of Copiholders that a lease of the Mannor rendring rent is good and in our case the reservation of the rent is intire and shall bind the successor and as to that which had been said that the Herriot is Collateral and shall not go with the reversion to this he
against Hutchinson and made title to present to the Church in the right of his wife and after the issue joyned and before the venire facias the wife died and the Plantiff shewed that himself had took out a venire facias in his own name and upon that Harris demurred in law because he supposed that the writ was abated but Winch was of opinion that the writ was not abated because this was a Chattel vested in the husband during the life of the wife Ferrers against English IN an action upon the case upon a promise between Ferrers and English and upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that the venire facias was not well awarded for it was proecipimus quod tibi venire facias Duodecim liberos et Legales homines Coram Henrico Hobert apud Westmonasterium where that ought to be Coram Iusticiariis nostris and therefore the writ being insufficient it is not amendable and for that he cited the case where the venire facias was awarded to th Coroner and that ought to be awarded to the Sheriff and this adjudged to be erroneous this case was answered that this was the custome and there was a case alledged to be adjudged 30. Eliz. between Cesor and Story where a Capias did issue out of this Court in this form Ita quod habeas Corpus ejus Coram Iusticiariis omitting apud Westmonasterium and this was reversed for error but this was answered to be in an original which ought to be precise in every point but Serjeant Crook said that because this was but judicial process and the trial is taken upon the habeas corpus that it is amendable for in all cases where the roll is right though there be an error in the venire facias yet this is amendable Sir Robert Nappers case A Rent was granted to Sir Robert Napper and if it happen that this annual rent to be behinde that then the land shall at all times be open and subject to distress of the Grantee according to the true form and effect of the said indenture and upon all the pleading a demurrer was joyned and the sole doubt was whether the last words were a distinct covenant by themselves for if they are then the obligation is forfeit for the lands are not open to distress because that the mother of Sir Robert held that till the age of 24. years or whether they are part of the former covenant and then the former worde will qualifie that because there was not any act made by him to the contrary and it was argued by Bawtrie that they are all one covenant for they charge the land with the Annuitie and he covenants that this shall be open to distress and it is all one matter and thing and is therefore a covenant and where one covenant doth depend upon another there one expounds the other so Dyer in Throgmortons case 151. and he urged many cases which are cited there and he cited the Lord Cromwels case where words of proviso are placed between words of covenants yet they will work according to the intent of the persons and there it is said that ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fiat relatio and so it appears to him that this referred to the estate which Sir Thomas had from his father and that he made nothing to impeach or to alter that and he cited the case of Sir Moile Finch though by the fine the Mannor of Beamstone was destroyed yet in the said indenture free egress and regress was reserved to the Courts for the Lady Finch afterwards an other fine was levied of all the lands and Tenements except the Mannor of Beamstone where in verity that was destroyed before and yet the judges did construe this to be a good exception because this was in verity the intent of the parties and there they made a construction upon the covenants which did lead the fine and upon the latter indenture which did direct the others and so the principal case in Althams case the judges did not only adjudge upon the first words of the lease but upon altogether and he cited the case of Hickmote where the exception extends to all the parties of the precedent deed and Hendon argued to the contrary that they were several covenants and yet he granted all the cases cited by Bawtrie but said they all stood upon this difference where it is a joynt thing and where it is a several thing as here and for that reason that ought not to be applies to that for they are distinct sentences and not joynt as is expressed in Sir Henry Finches case Coo. 6. and they ought to be construed as distinct covenants for otherwise they shall not take effect at all for then he had not any remedy for the rent which is expresly against the intentions of the parties and Crawley Serjeant said that if the two first covenants were according to the title and the last was only conditional if the rent was behinde that then it should be open to distress and the Court seemed that they were several covenants but judgement was respited for that time and the same Term the case was moved again by Hendon that they were distinct covenants and that this was the scope of the indenture and the intention of the parties that this should begin presently and secondly the two covenants are of several natures and if the third covenant be not several then it is idle for all is implied in the first and day was further given to advise of that but the opinion of the Court seemed to be for the Plantiff See after Trin. 22. Iac. Westlie against King VVEstly against King in debt the bond did bear date the 11th of February 18. Iac. and this was to perform an award Ita quod the ward be made before Easter of all controversies depending between them in the Star chamber and the Defendant pleaded that there was no award made in the mean time and the other shewed the award and assigned the breach and the Defendant replied that before the award was made c. upon the 16th of March they discharged the Arbitrators and so concluded as at the first they made no award and now Serjeant Davenport moved that he had not maintained his bar quod non fecerit tale arbitrium and have given the discharge in evidence for now it appears that the bond is forfeit but Hutton said that the Plantiff ought to have shewed this discharge and so he had shewed the forfeiture and he said further that the rejoynder is an affirmation of the bar if they were discharged then they made no award and this notwithstanding shewed a forfeiture of the bond but not upon the point which the Plantiff had alledged and Winch said though this is is so yet it appears that the Plantiff had cause of action by all the record before and day was given over in the case
and at that day the Court was of opinion that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for by the rejoynder the Defendant had shewed that he had forfeited the bond though that be another matter then is in the replication and so he shall have judgement super totam materiam according to the judgement in Francis Case Coo. 8. for their the declaration stood good though the Plantiff had not cause of action in the same manner yet because it appeared he had cause of action he shall have judgement Weaver against Best VVEaver against Best in debt for 48. s. in the debet and detinet and for 2. shirts in the detinet only and he declared that the Defendant such a year retained the Plantiff to be his servant in husbandry giving him 48. s. and a shirt by the year and he shewed that he retained him for the next year and he averred that he served him and they were at issue upon nihil debet and the Plantiff had a verdict for him and it was now moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Brigman because he had not shewed that his retainer was according to the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. which Statute limitteth the form of there retainer and their wages and other things and he had not shewed the place where service was and also he had joyned two debts in one action one in the debet and detinet the other in the detinet only and Winch Iustice said that the Statute of the 5. Eliz. extends to such as are retained in husbandry and therefore other retainers are left as they were before the Statute at the Common law and this shall be intended to be a retainer according to the Statute if the contrary be not shewed by the other partie for his retainer was for a year and therefore it shall be intended that the wages was appointed by the Iustices and it was also said by the Court that if the justices of the peace in this kinde do neglect to set down the wages yet a servant may bring an Action upon his own contract also it was said that he needs not to shew the place where he served for if he did no service yet if he did not depart it is very good and for the other matter it was clear that he may bring his Action so by several precipes in one writ Thornes case IT was agreed clearly between Thorn and C. that where an obligation is made and the obligor and the obligee conferred about it and the obligor said to the obligee that he had forged this this is actionable for here it refers to a certainty but if he had said to the other thus he was a forger and had forged falsâ— writings no action will lie for the words are to general in that case also it was agreed clearly by the Court the Sheriff may not arrest a man upon a Capias after the time of the return of the writ Grasier against Wheeler Grasier as Executor brought an action of Covenant against Wheeler upon a lease made by the Testator rendring rent and this was made by I. S. and the Defendant covenanted that the lessee should pay the rent and the Plantiff assigned the breach in non-payment of 30. l. to the Testator such a day when it was due and for 10. l. due in his own time and the attorney of the Defendants as to the 10. l. pleaded non sum informatus and as to the other he pleaded that the Defendant paid to the Testator 7. l. in money and a horse in full satisfaction of all the said 30. l and that the Testator accepted that in full satisfaction and the Plantiff said that this was paid to the Testator for another debt absque hoc that he received that in satisfaction of the 30. l. and now Devenport argued that the issue was misjoyned for the issue ought to have been taken upon the payment and not upon the acceptance and he cited Pinnels case Coo. 5. where the payment in full satisfaction ought to be pleaded precisely and he said that he agreed to the case of Nichols Coo. 5. where the issue was joyned upon payment upon a single Bill and found that this was not paid and the Plantiff had judgement but if the issue had been found for the Defendant that had not been aided by the Statute for though it had been paid yet that was no bar Bridgman contrary and he said the difference is where the issue is joyned upon a matter alledged by the adverse partie and they are at issue upon a point which is not material that is aided by the Statute of the 18. Eliz. and where no issue at all is joyned there is not any help Winch Iustice said that this is an issue which will make an end of the matter And at another day this Tearm Serjeant Harvey moved the case again in arrest of judgement because the issue is joyned upon the acceptance which is not material and he cited Fowkes case depending in this Court debt upon an obligation and the Defendant pleaded the acceptance of another obligation in satisfaction which in verity is no bar and issue was taken upon that and it was doubted whether this being insufficient be aided by the Statute or not Bridgman Serjeant said to the contrary and he said as before that because the issue is taken upon the allegation of the Defendant if it is not good yet it is aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. and Hutton said this is a full issue and as to the traverse said it is a material issue for he pleaded that he accepted them for another thing absque hoc that he accepted them in satisfaction of the 30. l. which is the most proper issue for he said it is clear that he may say that he accepted them for part c. and good and so here The Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore in Dower IT was agreed clearly in Dower between the Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore that if the Tenant plead never seised to have Dower and in verity the husband of the demandant had an estate but that was by disseisin which is avouched by the entrie of the deseissee who had a title paramont this is no title by which she may have Dower though they are at issue upon this plea and also it was agreed that if a man had a good estate by bargain and sale from him who had right to alien that and yet after he accepts a fine upon conusance of right as that c. from the other partie though in this case this be a conclusion to the parties between whom the fine was to denie that the land was of the gift of the Conusor and so that he was seised yet it is not any conclusion to the jurors to finde the verity of the matter in fact and that he had nothing of the gift of the Conusor also it was agreed in that case if a man held lands
reversion for life of the Grandfather is no dispensation to the estate of the lessee for though the action was suspended during his life yet now it is on foot again and in many cases an estate may be dispunishable of waste and yet by matter ex post facto this shall be punishable viz. where the first privitie of the estate was determined as in case a lease for years be without impeachment of waste and then the lessor releases to the lessee c. the first privity is gone and he is now punishable in an action of waste and here in our case there was no absolute dispensation but only for the time and yet perchance though the estate is subject to waste in the creation yet if the lessor will afterwards by his deed grant that this shall be dispunishable this may priviledge him but here is no such matter in the case at the bar and of this opinion was the Court and Winch said that there was no difference where the Franke tenement is intercedent for if this be not punishable yet the particular estate shall not participate of that priviledge of him in the remainder and Iones Iustice said if the particular estate had been extracted and drawn out of that estate for life in that case that had been dispunishable but it was agreed by Hendon Serjeant that the Plantiff in his declaration had declared of a waste after the estate for life was determined and they found that this was made in the time of him in reversion for life and so differed but the Court was of opinion that this was nothing to the purpose for it is only a variance from the time and not from the matter for it is not material whether this was before his death or after his death because in both cases this is punishable but day was given over to shew other causes Portington and Beamount IT was argued clearly in the case between Portington and Beamount that if the Court of the Councel of York which is a Court of equitie do decree against a maxime in law as against a joynt Tenant who had that by Survivorship that the heir of his companion shall have the Moietie that in this case a prohibition shall be granted except that during the lives of the parties it was agreed that there shall not be any Survivorship and then they hold plea upon that equitie and then good In Dower it was agreed clearly that if the Tenant shew that before the husband any thing had in the land A. was seised of the same land in fee and leâ— that for years rendring rent and granted the reversion to the husband of the Plantiff who died seised of the said reversion and so demanded judgement if the demandant shall have Dower c. this is no plea in bar of Dower but proves she had title of Dower but this saves the lease for years and she shall have judgement only of the reversion and of the rent and also she doth save to the Tenant damages and the demandant shall be indowed of the reversion Summers against Dugs SUmmers brought an action upon the case upon a promise against Dugs and he shewed in his declaration that the Defendant was rector of the Rectorie of D. and that he and all his predecessors had used to have all manner of Tithes and said that he the Plantiff occupied 100. acres of land in the same parish and shewed that the Defendant promised to the Plantiff that in consideration that he would plant his lands with Hops and so make the Tithes to be the better the Defendant promised to the Plantiff to allow him towards every acre which he shall so plant 40. s. towards the charge in planting them and he shewed that he planted an acre at the request of the Defendant and so upon the promise brought the action and now it was moved whether this was a good consideration to ground an action because the Tithes are not bettered by the planting of that with Hops but by the growing of them and the increase of them and he had not averred that the Tithes were of better value then they were before and it was also moved that he may not have an action for the Rood c. but this afterwards was referred to Arbitrement but the Court said if the Plantiff had shewed in his declaration that he might have made more benefit of that by other means then that by the planting of it with Hops the Tithes also being bettered then it had been more cleare Philip Holman against Tuke PHillip Holman was executor of George Holman and he brought an action of debt against George Tuke and declared upon a lease made by himself by the name of Philip Holman executor of the Testament of George Holman deceased of such land and the said land was delivered to him in execution of a Statute by extent which Statute was made to this Testator and this lease was for years if the Plantiff should so long continue seised by force of the Statute and it was rendring 100. l. per annum and for 3. years rent behinde he brought his action in the debet and in the detinet and also in the declaration he averred that he did continue seised so long by vertue of the extent and Serjeant Bing demurred in law because he said the action ought to be brought in the detinet only because he had brought the action as executor but Hendon and the Court c. Iones and Hutton to the contrary because the lease was made by himself and Hutton said in the case there is difference between a personal contract and real and it was said that an executor shall never be forced to bring his action in the detinet only where he need not name himself to be an executor which note well It was agreed in a case by Hobert that where a man brought an action de parco facto and declared upon the breach of a pound and also of the taking out of beasts and the Defendant as to the taking out of the beasts pleaded not guilty and as to the breaking of the pound he said that he was Lord of the Soil upon which the pound stood and thaâ— he brake of the Lock and put a lock of his own and Hobert said in this case that he ought to plead the general issue for in verity this is not any broach of the pound except the beast come out of it and Iones Iustice was of an opinion that if he put out the beasts he may not have this action because the freehold was in him but he ought to have a special action upon the case Entred in Easter Term in the 19th year of King James Rot. 1672. Ellen Goldingham against Sir John Saunds ELlen Goldingham brought an action of Dower against Sir Iohn Saunds to be indowed of the third part of the Mannor of Goldingham and he vouched the son to warranty as son and heir to Christopher Goldingham husband of
have Dower because the feme is dowable of them for this sufficeth to say that he had assets generally 7. Ed. 2. Dower 184. out of which I conclude that this voucher is not like to other vouchers but this is onely to secure the estate of the Purchasers and then as to the president I answer first it was found there that the vouchee had nothing and also it was never debated for a writ of error was brought of that and nothing done for this was referred to Arbitrement and so I pray that no writ of seisin may be awarded and the Court semed to be of opinion that the judgement may be conditional chiefly Hobert and Iones vehemently but now they said because that judgement is once given they are not to reverse their own judgements and to give another judgement and now it is as if he had no assets but yet that doth not aide an erroneous judgement given before and therefore if the Tenant will be relieved he ought to bring his writ of error but it was said that if this judgement was to be given again this was as it should be because that is all one now as if he had not assets and the judgement stood as it was Potter against Brown NOw the case of Potter and Brown was moved again and Hendon took two exceptions as before first for default of averment and secondly the words are not actionable for it was adjudged in Lanes case if one say of another that he is as arrant a Thief â—s any is in the Goal of Warwick this is not good without averment that there are Thieves in Warwick Goal and here it shall be so for the law doth not suppose that there are Thieves in England and besides here in this case the subsequent words do qualifie the other for the words under the for ought to be of such a thing as is Theft and that is not so in our case Serjeant Richardson to the contrary the last words do not qualifie but rather aggravate them for he gives a reason of his speach and this taking is to be understood with a fellonious intent for the first words do charge him to be a Thief and therefore the last words shall be intended that he took them with a fellonious intent for he did not only charge him in the general but in particular but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Winch said that the Plantiff shall not have judgement because he failes of averment for he did not say expresly that he is a Thief but as arrant a Thief as any is in England and we are not to enquire after words except they are plain for if one say he was in Warwick Goal for stealing of a Horse adjudged not to be actionable and we may not presume that there are Thiefes in England and so judgement was arrested Adams against Ward INtra Trin. 21. Iac. Rot. 1845. note that it was said in an action upon the case between one Adams and Ward an Attorney that whereas one Hennings sued Adams in an action of debt and Adams retained Ward to be his Attorney and gave him warrant to plead the general issue and Ward suffered the judgement by nihil dicit that this was not any cause of an action except it was by Covin and for that if Adams had not laid in his declaration that this was by Covin he should not have recovered and at another day it was agreed that the Covin was not traversable by Plea but only in evidence at the Bar. Cook against Cook in Dower IN a writ of Dower between Cook and Cook they were at issue and at the day of nisi prius the Defendant pleaded that the demandant had entred and was seised and yet is seised since the last contrivance c. Octabis Sancti Hillarii ultimo quo die continetur usque ad hunc diem c. vicesimum diem Februariâ— which in verity was the day of the nisi prius and it was demurred upon this Plea for two causes the first was because he had not shewed that the Tenant was disseised for otherwise it shall not abate the action and to say that the demandant was seised was not sufficient for though this implies so much that the other was disseised yet here it ought to be expresly alledged but the Court spake nothing to this but Winch thought this to be very good according to Dyer 76. there the entrie is pleaded only and yet good but they resolved that the pleading of the continuance is not good for it is from one Term to another nisi prius justiciarii Venerint c. and he ought to have precisely shewed that but the question now was whether the demandant shall have judgement to have seisin or have apetite Cape only and Iustice Hutton said that it was adjudged in Sir Henry Browns case that if a man pleaded an insufficient Plea after the last continuance there the Plantiff shall have judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and for this he cited the new book of entries fo 57â— and this may not be a judgement by default for they both appeared and therefore he shall have the same judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and it was said in this case though the Defendant did demur generally yet this is very good The residue of Trinity Term in the 22. year of King James GOdsel an Attorney brought an action upon the case for words and he laid in his declaration that the Defendant spoke those words among other Master Godsel is a knave for he forged false deeds for which he was imprisoned at York and should have lost his ears and the jury found only these words Godsel is a forger of writings and deserves to lose his ears and Hendon moved in arrest of judgement that the words which are found are not the words in the declaration for the words were there that he forged deeds and it is only found to be writings and it was adjudged in this Court between Brown and Ellis that for saying an Attorney had forged writings no Action will lie for they are too general and besides it doth not at all appertain to him to make writings and so for Nowels Case he is Cooped up for forging of writings and it was adjudged not to be actionable and so to say he is a forger of writings by which he had cozned fatherless Children the words are not actionable because he did not say Deeds and upon this motion and reason the judgement in this case was arrested This case is Entred Hillarie the 21. Jac. Roll. 550. Sir George Trenchard against Peter Hoskins TRenchard brought an Action of Covenant against Peter Hoskins and declared upon an indenture bearing date the 19th of September 44. of Eliz. made between Iohn Hoskins father of the Defendant and the Defendant on the one part and the Plantiff on the other parte by which they bargained and sold certain lands to the
after the promise and the 14. l. paid and he said there is a difference where a thing is a present dutie and where it is a dutie upon request or upon any Collateral Act there the request is traversable otherwise when it is a dutie upon a contract or upon an obligation there Licet saepius c. is sufficient and according to this it was adjudged Hill 18. Iac. Rot. 1894. debt upon an arbitrement between one Prideaux and Walcot for the payment of 340. l. upon request and it was alledged there that he had not paid that Licet saepius requisitus and it was adjudged that in this case it was not sufficient because it was not a dutie presently but upon the request and the place where the request was made ought to be put in certain and he cited another case H. 16. Iac. between Hill and Moor adjudged in this point of assumpsit as in our case for where it becomes to be a debt payable upon request there ought to be alledged a time and place of the request and so H. 30. Eliz. one Welborns case where a man promised to pay so much money for costs of a suit when he should be requested to pay that and there after verdict judgement was arrested and Hobert said that the request is part of the cause of the Action and for that it ought to be set down precisely and there ought to be a promise broken and such a promise upon which an issue may be taken Bubles case IT was argued in the case of Buble who was Administrator during the minoritie of an Infant that the Court of the Marches of Wales have no Authoritie to force such an Administrator to accompt before them but only the Ecclesiastical Court and if they intermeddle in any such thing this Court may grant a Prohibition The great case of Cooper and of Edgar in Ejectione firme I In Ejectione firme between Cooper and Edgar for diverse lands in Norfolk upon a lease made by Downey and his wife for 5. years and upon the general issue the jury gave a special verdict to this effect that one Henry Foyne was seised ofland in his demeasne as of fee and 9. April 34. Eliz. infeoffed Iustice Windham and others to the use of Anne his wife for life the remainder to him and his right heirs in fee and then Henry died and that the reversion discended to Robert Foyne as son and heir to Henry and he being so seised of the reversion 11. Iun. 10. Iac. by indenture made between Robert and Anne his Mother who was Tenant for life it was agreed that Robert should levie a fine of that in Trinity Term and this fine was to be to the use of Anne and her heirs for ever if Robert did not pay or cause to be paid to Anne 10. l. upon the first of September next and if he pay then it shall be to other uses S. to the use of the same Anne for life of that part of which she was seised and of the residue to the use of Robert and his heirs and they found over that the fine was levied to the same uses the same term and they found over that Robert died at the age of 20. years and a 11. moneths and this was before the first of September and it was found that one Anne and Elizabeth under whom the Plantiff did claim were sisters and heirs to Robert and that they had not any notice of the use nor of the indenture and that they did not pay the money upon the first of September but that afterwards they entred and made the lease c. and the Defendant claimed under Anne who is now the Lady Cesar and now if upon all the matter the Defendant be guilty was the question And Crawley Serjeant argued for the Plantiff and the substance of his argument was in this mannor and first he said that he conceived the points to be upon the special verdict either to concern the antient estate or the new estate of the Lady Cesar and here we are also to consider whether the uses are well created and stand good by the indenture and by the fine without the help of the special verdict and first I will not dispute when an Infant levies a fine and dies before the reversal of that whether his heir may avoid that and this is ruled in Cooks Reports 10. H. 7. 16. that this may not be because that this trial ought to be by inspection which now may not be when he is deed but that which I will insist upon in the first place is this when an infant made an indenture to declare the uses of a subseqent fine and he doth after that at another time levie a fine generally without expressing of any use in the fine whether he may any wise enter and avoid the uses of the same fine or whether the law of necessity doth adjudge the fine to be to the same uses without the help of any Averment and I hold that he may avoid those uses which do stand upon this difference that it is incongruous to reason that if the law admits a man to be of abilitie to levie a fine then at the same instant or after he may declare the uses because it it is intended that he is of full age and if this had been a fine with grant and render in which there is alwayes an use expressed as 26. H. 8. 2 that the grant of an Infant is absolutely void but I do agree the case in Beckwiths case of a feme Covert Cook 2. or of a man of nonsane memory that their declaration of that subsequent use is good because that the fine which is levied by them is a perpetual Bar and conclusion and by such means there disposal doth conclude them for ever but it is otherwise of an infant for he may avoid the fine by error during the minoritie and the opinion of the book of 46. Ed. 3. 34. is that if an infant do alien a rent he may bring a dum fuit infra aetatem which seems to infer that the grant of an infant is not absoluely void I answer that is but the admission of the Court and 15. 7. 4. if an infant made a deed and at full age he inrolled that this is a conclusion for him to denie that for this inrolment is an affirmance of that and the reason of that is because this is an affirmance of the same thing but here the fine and the uses are distinct and for that they are voidable and for the other point the derdict had found that the fine was levied to the uses aforesaid whether that had established the uses and made them unavoidable so long as the fine is in force and I hold that it had not for it is no more then ad usus supra dictos and it had not bettered the uses for they had no reference to aide the uses like to the case of the Earl of Leicester
the parties hinders the operation of the law and that law will not provide for him that provides not for himself and the Lady her self was partie to the limiting of the uses and she covenanted that she will be seised by vertue of the fine and under the condition in the indenture and so it is a plain Surrender of her former estate and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Serjeant Hendon to the contrary HEndon contrary there are 3. points First whether this be a precedent or a subsequent condition and I conceive it is subsequent and here the indentures being but to declare the uses of the fine and not to create any use ergo it shall be guided by the intents of the parties appearing in them and so is the Earl of Rutlands case Cook 5. and Dyer 357. and Shelleys case and the meaning of the parties was not to raise any use to Robert but only a possibilitie to reduce that by the performance of the condition and first it is here said that the Conusee shall be seised to the uses hereafter expressed and under the conditions and then the use ought to preceed the condition for no man may stand seised under the condition except the condition is subsequent to the use to arise Secondly when is the use to arise to Robert surely when he payes 10. s. and then in the mean time the use is to the Lady and her heirs for tunc had here relation to when as it is said in Boles case Cook 3. and in Grants case cited in Loves case Cook 10. and 17. Ed. 3. 1. all which cases prove that tâ—en had relation to when and before this when he had nothing and this doth appear to be the agreement of the parties and now for the words themselves I take it that they make a subsequent condition and so it is here limited in intention and for that in matter also and it is said in Colthirsts case in Plowden that if the estate doth first pass reducible upon condition then it is subsequent and here it is limited to the Conusee and his heirs if the Conusor do not pay but here it hath been said is inversio verborum and the consequent is placed before the Antecedent and this hath been proved by Logick I never knew cases in law to be expounded by Logical and Grammatical learning but by the intentions of the parties and here I conceive that the estate is vâ—sted in the Conusee by the fine and so the condition is subsequent but admit it is Executory and I say concerning that there are these differences that if the state of the thing granted is executory and that the condition of the thing granted is Executory and the condition is to remain with the estate so long as the estate doth remain the condition is precedent 28. E. 3. 2 4. 3. 1. H. 6. 32. but if the condition be but one time to be executed and that not contained with the estate then it is subsequent 10. Eliz. Dyer Calthorps case but here our estate is executed for it is expresly limited to the Lady Cesar and her heirs which takes away all implied uses so that no implied use shall result in the mean time and so 75. Assises land given to a man and to his heirs if he have heirs of his body now this if is subsequent and so I conceive that it is not a condition simply but a conditional limitation for it appears by Mr. Littleton because it is no otherwise expressed and another reason is because the condition is annexed to the future time ergo that is subsequent and yet I grant there is a difference betwixt such an estate conditional annexed to an interest and where it is is annexed to an authoritie it may be precedent but for an interest it is subsequent as is the case of Bracton lib. 2. fo 3. and now for the second point whether the heir may and ought to perform that and I do conceive that he is and it is not annexed to the person because it is real and doth arise with the land Secondly yet the law doth expect who ought to have performed that but it is the performance it self which the law doth respect 4. E. 3. 2. such condition real which doth arise with the land and in such a case no notice is in that case requisite and the last point is whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is saved by the common law of England for the fine only is as the grant of the reversion by the explanation of the indenture and then there is no surrender in the case but when the condition is performed the estate for life doth remain and so was it resolved in Mr. Mansors case and yet I agree that a litle matter will make a surrender and Mr. Ruds case where lessee for years of an advowson was presented by the Patron that was a surrender but the Statute of the 27th of H. the Eighth at the end saved that though it is to her own use for the words of the saving are to every person and their heirs which hereafter shall be seised to any use all such former rights c. possession c. as they might have had to their own use in any lands whereof they be seised to any other use whatsoever and so upon the whole matter I do conceive that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant The residue of the case of Gibson and Ferrers NOw the case of Gibson and Ferrers which see before was argued again by Serjeant Bridgman and he said as before the award is not good for the interest and yet he now agreed that covenants bonds and contracts for usury are good in law but yet it may not be awarded 17. Ed. 4. 5. if a man do submit to Arbitrators they may not award that he and his wife shall levie a fine but if the partie himself do promise that this is good and shall binde the wife to perform that and besides he said that here is an award made only of one side and nothing is allowed to Ferrers and so not good 9. Ed. 4. 29. 29. H. 6. 22. and I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon to the contrary and he argued if an award be good in any part though it be not in that which is assigned for breach yet it is good upon such plea of nullum fecerit arbitrium and the other shews an award and assignes the breach in this case the breach is not traversable for it is of the form and not of the substance of the action but to that the Court did presently answer that the cause of the action is the breach of the award and this he ought to make apparent to the Court for otherwise he shall not have any action and though the breach is not traversable yet it is of the substance of the action for upon such plea pleaded he not only