are in my possession and they are evicted by the right Owner a Covenant will lye contra if I have not possession at the time of the letting them and if I let land and J.S. enter before the Lessee the Lessee cannot have a Covenant Quod nota Et ad journeâ—ur 35 Eliz. Scarret against Tanner in C. B. Rot 1458. IN a false Imprisonment the Defendant justified that he was High Constable of the Hundred of E. in the County of â—…p and that the Plaintiff made an affray within the said Hundred upon one Walm who came presently to the Defendant and told him of it and took his oath that he was in fear of his life whereupon the Defendant came to the Plaintiff and arrested him and carried him to Prison untill he could finde sufficient Sureties of peace Glanvill A Constable cannot arrest one to finde surety of the peace upon a complaint made to him unless he himself sees the peace broken 7 Ed. 4. Kingsmill contr For he is at Common Law Conservator pacis 12 H. 7.18 And how can he keep the peace if he may not compell them to finde surety 44 Ed. 3. Barr. 2â—2 If a man that is threatned complain to the Constable he may compell the party to finde surety for his good behaviour and may justifie the imprisoning him or putting him in the Stocks 22 Ed. 4.35 10 Ed. 4.18 where a Constable in such case may take a Bond. Anderson I grant that Constables are keepers of the peace at the Common Law and are to keep the peace as much as in them lyes and that is to take men that they finde breaking the peace and to carry them to a Iustice of peace to finde surety but the Constable cannot take security nor recognizance nor bail for he is not an Officer upon Record and if he do take a Bond how shall he certifie it and unto what Court Walmesley contr Who said that the Constable might take security by bond although not by recognizance or bail Beaumond A Constable may put him that breaks the peace within the Stocks but it must be where the breach of peace is committed in his view for he hath no authority to take an oath that a man is in fear of his life and then the foundation of his justification doth fail Owen The oath is not material for although he cannot take such oath yet his taking of surety is good and before Iustices of peace were made the peace was preserved by Constables and the Statute that creates Iustices does not take away the power of Constables and therefore he may justifie Sed adjournatur Pasch 38 Eliz. Worsley against Charnock in C. B. IN an audita quaerela the Case was thus The father and son were bound in a Statute-Merchant to Charnock who sued out an Execution against them and their lands were severally extended and they supposing that the Statute was not good because it was not sealed with both their seals according to the Statute they both brought a joynt audita querela and whether they could joyn in this Action or not was the question Warburton They shall not joyn for in all cases a man must make his complaint according to his grief and here their grief is several as it two men be imprisoned they shall not joyn in a false imprisonment The same Law in a Battery 8 Ed. 4. 18 H. 6. 10 Ed. 4. It J.S. hath goods of divers men they shall not joyn in a Replevin and 33 H. 6. two men shall not joyn in an audita quaerela unless the land in execution is in them joyntly and 29 Ed. 3. two Ioynt-tenants Infants alien they shall have several Writs of Cum fuit infra aeâ—atem But he confessed the Case in 30 Ed. 3. Fitzherbert audita quaerela where two men were in Execution and the Conusor did release to one and then to another by another Release yet both shall joyn in an audita quaerela but this is not Law and besides they cannot recover damages joyntly by reason of their several vexations and this Action being personal damages cannot be severed Vid. 2 Ed. 3. Execution 45. 9 Ed. 4.31 12 Ed. 4.6 Harris contra And as to the last reason the Book in the 20 of Elizabeth is that no damages shall be recovered in an audita quaerela which if it be Law then is the doubt at an end And whereas it hath been said that they shall not joyn because their griefs are several methinks there is no reason but that if he that survives shall be charged with the whole that they shall joyn also in their discharge for if their charge be joynt their discharge shall be joynt also And in the 34 H. 6. and 30 Ed. 3. where an audita quaerela may be brought joyntly and he resembled this to the Case of a Monstraverunt where if a Tenant in antient demesn be distreyned all the Tenants shall joyn because the grievance to one may be a grievance to all the rest Yelverton of the same opinion Tho suing of the Execution was the cause of the audita quaerela but not the ground for the ground was the Statute-merchant and therefore it is here brought according to the Statute Anderson If two men do me several Trespasses yet I may have a joynt Action against them and the death of one of them shall not abate the Writ but if two are Plaintiffs in a personal Action the non-suit of one shall be the non-suit of the other and in our case the Statute was joynt and also the Execution then if all the Writs are so the audita quaerela which is to discharge them shall be joynt also especially in this Writ where they are as it were Defendants and therefore he resembled this Case to a Writ of Errour or an Attaint brought by two joyntly and one is non-sued yet this shall not abate the Writ because they are in a manner Defendants Walmesley contr The Action ought to be brought according to the cause of the wrong and the wrong begun in suing the Execution and that was several and therefore the audita quaerela ought to be several also but if this Statute had been good and had been discharged by release or defeasance then the audita quaerela might be brought joyntly for then the ground of the execution was joynt but here is but a colourable Statute and the cause of the Action is not begun before the Execution sued Owen and Beaumond agreed and after by assent of Anderson Iudgement was given that they ought to have several Writs Note Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 323. or 521. between Curteise and Overscot If A. did recover against B. by two several Iudgements whereby B. is in Execution it was adjudged that he shall not have one audita quaerela but two several Writs Pasch 37 Eliz. Sawer against Hardy in B. R. Rot. 254. IN an Ejectment the Case was this A woman was Lessee for forty years sub
the words are in the negative which will not exclude him of his interest but in the Case at Bar they will because they are in the affirmative so That he shall occupy the Land solely And Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Pasch 3. Eliz. Woodward against Nelson in B. R. WOodward Parson of Wotton in consideration of 120 l. payd by Bretman one of his Parishioners did accord and agree with him that he and his assignes should be discharged of Tythes during the time that he should be Parson Bretman made a Lease to Nelson Woodward did libell against him for Tythes and Nelson prayed a prohibition upon the said contract And it this was sufficient matter for a prohibition was the Question because it was by word only and without writing which amounts only to a cause of action upon a promise for Bretman but no action for his lessees neither can this amount to a Release of Tythes for as Tythes cannot be leased without Deed so they cannot be released or discharged without Deed. Gawdy Justice Tythes cannot be discharg'd without Deed unless by way of contract for a sum of money and he cited the 21 H. 6.43 Fenner for that year in which the discharge was made it was good by way of discharge without Deed because the Parson for that year had as it were an Interest but such discharge can have no continuance for another year for default of a Deed and so a promise being no discharge it is no cause of a prohibition But Gawdy held as afore And about this time Wray Chief Iustice dyed and Popham succeeded and the same day he was sworn Cook moved this Case again And the Court held that the agreement being by parol was not good And Fenner then said that without writing the agreement could not be good between the parties but for one year And the Court awarded a consultation But upon search made no Iudgment was entred in the Roll. Trinit 35 Eliz. Dr. Foord against Holborrow in B. R. Rot. 367. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond the case was Dr. Drury to whom the Plaintiff was Executor made a Lease to Holborrow of the Mannour of Golding for years and Holborrow the Lessee entred into a Bond that if he his Executors or Assigns did pay to Anne Goldingham widow the sum of 20 l. for 17 years if the said Goldingham should so long live and so long as Holborrow the Lessee or any claiming by or under the said Holborrow shall or may occupy or enjoy the said Mannour of Goldingham and then Holborrow surreudred his Lease to the Obliges praecextu cujus the Defendant pleaded quod non occupavit nec potuit occupare c. wherefore he did not pay the said sum to Anne Goldingham and the Executor of the Obligee brought an Action of Debt upon this Obligation Johnson for the Defendant The term is gone for he cannot occupy after the surrender and also the Obligee is a party to the cause why it is not performed and therefore he shall take no advantage 4 â— 7.2 But the whole Court was against him for he to whom the surrender is made cometh in quodammodo by him and is his Assignee for he shall be subject to the charge that was before the surrender and also the Defendant shall be bound by these words in the Obligation viz. so long as he shall or may and although these words were not inserted yet he shall pay the annuity for where the first Cause does commence in himself he shall not have advantage thereby but otherwise where he is not party to the first Cause As if two Ioynt-tenants with Warranty make a partition the Warranty is gone because they are parties to the act which made the extinguishment but if one makes a Feoffment of his part the Warranty as to the other remains 11 Ed. 4.8 and in the Case at Bar the Obligor made the surrender and therefore he is party and the first cause and there is a diversity when the thing to be done is collateral and when not for if a Lessee does oblige himself to do a collateral thing as payment of money there he ought to do it although that he surrender for although the Obligee do accept of the surrender yet no act is done by him to hinder the performance of the condition but where the Obligee does any act to hinder the performance of the Condition the Condition is saved as if the Lessee be bound to the Lessor to suffer J.S. to enter into a Chamber during the Lease and he surrenders to the Obligee who will not suffer J.S. to enter the Obligation is saved and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff 36 Eliz. Bedford against Hall in B. R. IN an Action of Covenant wherein the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant did devise and grant to him certain land with all his goods contained in a certain Inventory for 20 years and said that in the Inventory amongst other things were five Cows which the Defendant seized and that one J.S. took them away as his proper goods as indeed they were and hereupon he brought this Action Fenner The Action will not lye for no interest in the Cows doth pass to the Lessee by this Lease neither was there any right to them in the Lessor As if I demise to you the land of J. S. by these words Dem si concessi and you enter and J S. re-enters no Covenant lyes against me And so in the 11 H. 4. a Prebend made a Lease for years and resigned now is the term of the Lessee quite destroyed and if after he be outed by a new Prebend yet he shall have no Action of Covenant And so is it 9 Eliz. Dyer â—57 Lessee for life makes a Lease for years and dyes the Lessee shall not have a Covenant if he be outed by him in the reversion because he is not in as a Termor at the time of the disturbance But if in the principal Case the Lessor had been possest of the goods although by a wrong title and the Owner had seized them then a Covenant would lye And so if a Disseisor makes a Lease and the Disseisee re-enters the Lessee shall have a Covenant Gawdy If a man lets lands wherein he hath no estate together with his goods although the land will not pass yet the goods do and if a man lets goods for a year and re takes them within the year no Covenant will lye for the property was never in the Lessee Câ—…câ— If a man lets anothers goods to me by Deed if I seize them and the Owner re-takes them a Covenant will lye and so will an Action on the Case if it be without Deed 42 Assi 8. If I be in possession of anothers goods and sell them a deceit lyes against me by the Vendee and so is the Book of Ass 42.8 conâ—ra where the Vendor hath not possession at the time of the sale And if I sell goods by Deed which
Administration it is at the election of the Plaintiff to sue him as Executor or Administrator 9 Ed. 4.33 21 H. 6.8 2 Rich. 2.20 18 Ed. 4. Walmesley agreed for the Statute of the 27 Eliz. hath made voyd the Testators gift and subâ—ata causa toll â—ur effectus and the gift being taken away the property is also taken away from the Donee and setled in the Donor as to any Creditor To which the other Iustices agreed and Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Trinit 43 Eliz. George Brooks Case in C. B. Rot. 1822. GIbson recovered in a Debt against Broâ—k as Executor to J.S. 60 l. and 6 l. damages and upon a scire facias to the Sheriff he returns no Assets and then upon the estate which was in Lâ—ndon which the Defendant had wasted and soâ—d a fieri facâ—as was awarded to the Sheriff of Lâ—…don with a Commission to the Sheriff of London to enquire if he had Assets at the day of the Writ c and by the inquest it was found that he had Assets at the day of the Writ purchased c. and that he had wasted the estate which was thus return'd by the Sheriff against which the Defendant took issue that he had not Assets and upon this was a a Demurr Walmesley A man may avert against the return of a Sheriff if the return be a matter collateral as if upon a Caâ—ias the Sheriff returns a Rescous there may be an averment against this 4 Eliz. 212. a. But if it be in pursuance of the Writ as non est inventus there no averment shall be taken against this but here the return is the saying of the Inquest and not his own saying Warburton I conceive he shall have an averment and traverse or else he shall be without remedy for he cannot have an Action on the Case against the Sheriff because he returns that which was found by the Inquest and so not like where the Sheriff returns falsly without such Inquest and no attachment lyes because it is but an Inquest of office and after it was moved at another day and a president shewn 33 Eliz. in B. R. between Westner and Whitenore and there it was adjudged that such return of the Sheriff was traversable and Anderson and Kingsmill agreed to it wherefore Iudgement was given for the Defendant and that the issue was well taken Day against Fynn IN an Ejectment the Plaintiff declared of a Lease for years of a house and 30 acres of land in D. and that J. S. did let to him the said Messuage and 30 acres by the name of his house in B. and ten acres of land there sive plus sive minus it was moved in arrest of Iudgement because that 30 acres cannot pass by the name of 10 acres sive plus sive minus and so the Plaintiff hath not conveyed to him 30 acres for when 10 acres are leased to him sive plus sive minus these words ought to have a reasonable construction to pass a reasonable quantity either more or less and not twenty or thirty acres more Yelverton agreed for the word 10 acres sive plus sive minus ought to be intended of a reasonable quantity more or less by a quarter of an acre or two or three at the most but if it be 3 acres less than 10. the Lessee must be content with it Quod Fenner Crook concesserunt and Iudgement was staid Smith against Jones IN an Action of the Case upon an Assumpsit the Case was that the wise of Jones was Executrix to J.S. and had Assets to satisfie all Debts and Legacies The woman dyes and the goods remained in the hand of her husband who was the Defendant and Smith the Plaintiff being a Legatee demanded his debt of the husband who said to him Forbear tâ—ll Michaelmas and I will pay you and if this was sufficient cause of Action was the question on a Demurrer Davies The promise is voyd because it is after the death of the wife Yelverton The Action will lye because he hath the â—oods in his possession and therefore is chargeable and must answer for them and therefore there is a good consideration And he cited Godfreys Case who laid claim to a Copyhold and the Copyholder in possession said to him If the opinion of the Lord Cook be that Godfrey hath a good title to it I will surrender it to him and because he did not surrender to him Godfrey brought an Action on the Case and it was adjudged that the staying of the suit was a sufficient consideration to have an Action on the Case Yelverton If the promise had been to pay this Legacy in consideration he would not sue him then it had been good Williams If there be no cause of suit there is no assumpsit and here is no just cause for he cannot be sued for Legacies Flemming of the same opinion for the husband cannot be sued by the Plaintiff and although perhaps the Legatee may sue him in the spirituall Court yet that is only for the temporall administration And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Defendant Michaelm 9. Jacob. Kempe and James against Laurence in C. B. Rot. 3648. IN a scire facias the case was thus Gant having two daughters made his wife Executrix untill his daughters came to the age of 21. years or should be married and then the Executorship should cease and that then his daughters should be his Executors and the woman did recover a debt upon a bond made to the Testator after which the daughters marryed the Plaintiffs and they brought the scire facias upon the said Judgment against the Defendants as terre-tenants and the Sheriff return'd the Defendants terre-tenants and no others and upon Oyer of the scire facias the Defendants pleaded that H. was seâ—sed of those lands die Judicii reddit and made a Lease for years to them Iudgment c. Nichols The daughters shall have this judgment as Executors for they are in privity and in by the Testator and are not like an Administrator who comes in by the Ordinary after the death of the Executor 6 H. 8.7 Cook 5. Rep. Brudnells Case and the daughters are Executors and subject to debts of the Testator And as to the plea he said that forasmuch as the Defendants are returned terre-tenants they cannot plead that they are but tenants for years and that their Lessor is not warned for the scire facias is a personall action to have execution but of the goods but in a reall action it is a good plea because the lessor himself cannot plead in discharge of such action 8 H. 6.32 And note that Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Rot. 834. Iudgment in the very same point was given accordingly Trinit 9 Jacob. Information against West in C. B. Rot. 1246. IN an Information upon the Statute of the 5 of Ed. 6. cap. 14. for buying of wheate-meale and converting it into starch It was resolved by three of the
Customes or Services and this is neither Rent Custome or Service for that of common right the Estrey belongs to the King and no common person may have it unlesse by grant or by prescription and the Statute is to be taken strickly for the Avowant for Damage-feasant or for Rent Charge should not recover Damage by this Statute before the Statute of 21 H. 8.19 where the Plaintiff hath remedy as it is holden in Dyer 141. B. But because divers Presidents were shewn out of the Common Pleas from time to time since the making that Statute that damages shall be recovered by the Avowant who avowes for Amercements c. it was said that it would be very difficult to controll so many Presidents Gawdy no great credit is to be given to such Presidents as passe sub silentio without any exception taken to them Another Error was assigned because the Iudgment was to have return averiorum predictorum whereas there was but one Guelding wherefore Iudgment was reversed and the Roll markt Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Fulgeambs Case Trespass against the Constables of Cambridge FUlgeambe brought an Action of Trespasse against the Constables of Cambridge the Case was The Plaintiffs horses estrayed into Cambridgeshire and were thereupon Impounded in Cambridge and then one A. came with a Commission from the Lord Hunsdon Captaine of Barwick to take Horses to ride to Barwick and the Constables delivered to him the Plaintiffs Horses and then one of the Horses died And the opinion of all the Iustices was that the Action did well lye for the Constables cannot take Horses out of the Pound to deliver them to any by vertue of such a Commission Trin. 36 Eliz. in B. R. Tauntons Case Lease on condition COles made a Lease to Taunton for ninety nine years on condition â—hat if he demised it in other manner then in such manner as he let the same to him that then it should be lawfull for him to re-enter the Lessee devises it by his Will to his youngest Son Resolved that Rigore Juris this is a breach of the Condition for a Devise is an Alienation as is holden 31 H. 8 Dyer 6. and although Conditions shall be taken strickly yet not directly against the intent of the parties and the reasonable disposition of the words and therefore a Devise shall be intended to be within this word Demise yet it was said that it was very hard according to equity that the Estate should be lost For he intended by this Will to prefer one of his youngest Children and not to break the Condition and thought not it was any breach of the condition and for this cause some doubt was made of the Case but Hil. 38 Eliz. Iudgment was given as aforesaid Pasch 36 Eliz. in B. R. Rot. 41. Leighs Case Ejectment THe Queen being seised of lands as Dutchesse of Lancaster did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff the Lessee is outed by A. the Plaintiff makes a Lease to B. for years and B. being outed brought an Ejectione firmae 1. It was resolved that the Queen as Dutchesse of Lancaster cannot be disseised for although she be not seised in jure Coronae yet is it in Seisin of the Queen and cannot be taken away from her in respect of her person 2. Gawdy and Fenner held that the Lessee being outed the terme is turned into a Right and therefore it hath been adjudged that an Ejectment will lye as the case is in Dyer 29 H. 8. It Tenant in taile the reversion in the King suffers a Recovery although this shall not be to the prejudice of the Kings Reversion yet shall it bar the Estate-tail So if a Parson makes a Lease for years and the Patron and Ordinary confirme it and the Parson dies and during the Vacation the Lessee is outed he is hereby outed of his terme yet is not the Frank-tenement touched Clench on the contrary That he who is outed hath an Estate but at sufferance for he cannot have an Estate for years without a Lease and it is agreed he shall not have an Estate of Freehold by reason of the Reversion in the Queen and the possession of the Lessor shall maintain the possession of the Lessee as well as the possession of the Lessee shall keep the Freehold of the Lessor and if he have but an Estate at sufferance then cannot the Lease to B. he good For if Tenant at sufferance of a common person makes a Lease for years this is a Disseisin And Popham was of opinion with Gawdy and Fenner wherefore Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff I have seen a Report 24 Eliz. in the Kings Bench upon a Demurrer between Edmund Frough and Henry Dixe where the better opinion was That if one enters on the terme of the Queen he shall not thereby gaine any possession but notwithstanding the Termor may grant over his Terme but it was agreed that he shall have an Ejectione firmae for by Plawden an Assise will lye of a Mill where the water is divers for the possession of the Mill continues in him But the Justices doubted whether it was an Ejectment wherefore the parties did compound In the 4. H. 6. Intrusion If Lessee for life the Remainder in the King be outed he shall have an Assise Trin. 36 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 134. Thurstons Case Ejectment GOffe brought an Ejectment against Thurston the Case was this The Abbot of Kingswold in Wiltshire being seised of Land in the 28th yeare of H. 8. did with consent of the Covent make a Lease for years by Deed indented and then the Abby came into the hands of H. 8. and from him to Edw. 6 and from him to the present Queen And it was pleaded that the Defendant hath the Lease and that Henry Thinne did intrude on the Defendant and made a Lease to the Plaintiff who being ejected by the Defendant brought this Action and on this matter the parties demurred 1. It was said that the Plaintiff cannot bring this Action inasmuch as Henry Thinne by his entry on Lessee for years the Reversion being in the Queen cannot gaine any possession so that nothing passeth by his Lease to the Plaintiff But the Court was against this for he is a sufficient Lessee to maintain an Action of Ejectment And it was adjudged in the Exchequer Chamber that the Queens Lessee for years being outed may have an Ejectione firmae which proves that he is put out of possession of his terme and this very point was in a manner agreed the last terme in the case of Norris Fenner If H. enters on the possession of the Queen and makes a Lease for years nothing doth passe and the Lessee cannot maintain an Ejectione firmae for he gains no possession at all but it is on the contrary heâ—e when he enters on the Queens Lessee Gawdy That is no difference for the Lessee for years of an Intrudor shall maintain at Ejectione firmae And I have seen
was a surrender But admitting it was no surrender but the first terme continues then the second question is 2. If when the Devisee enters into the terme devised to him without consent of the Executor by which entry he is a wrongfull Seisor and a Disseisor and after he grants his right and interest to the Executor if this Grant be good or no because he had not any terme in him but onely a right to the terme suspended in the land and to be revived by the entry of the Executor And adjudged that it was a good Grant and it shall inure first as the agreement of the Executor by the acceptance of the Grant that the Devisee had a terme in him as a Legacy And secondly the Deed shall have operation by way of Grant to passe the Estate of the Devisee to the Executor and so no wrong and the case was resembled to the case of surrender to the grantee of a Reversion which first shall inure as attornment and after as surrender and so was it adjudged Trin. 37 Eliz. IN an Action on the Case for these words Carter is a prigging pilfering Merchant and hath pilfered away my Corne and my Goods from my Wife and my Servants and this I will stand to And the Action was commenced in a base Court in the Country and Iudgment given and the Record removed by Writ of Error And it seemed to the Court that the words were not actionable wherefore Iudgment was reverst Sed quaere rationem Gowood against Binkes A Man did assume and promise to I.S. in consideration that he would forbeare a Debt due to him untill such a time That he would pay the Debt if A.B. did not pay it and he that made the promise died and the money was not paid and therefore an Action was brought against his Executors who traversed the Assumpsit and a Verdict found against them and in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved that an Action grounded on a simple Contract lies not against Executors unlesse upon an Assumpsit for a Debt or Duty owing by the Testator himself and not of such a collaterall matter as the forbearance of the Debt of another but by Gawdy Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff whereupon Popham said that he believed this Iudgment would be reversed by Writ of Error in the Exchequer Chamber and the same day at Serjeants-Inn such a case was depending in the Exchequer Chamber to be argued and reversed for the cause ut supra And the case was between Jordan and Harvey and entred Trin. 36 Eliz. Rot. 384. Hil. 37 Eliz. Rot. 34. Castleman against Hobbs IN an Action of the Case for saying Thou hast stollen half an acre of Corne innuendo Corne severed the Defendant demurred upon the Declaration Fenner It is not Felong to move Graine and take it away Popham agreed to it and that the word Innuendo would not alter the Case unlesse the precedent words had vehement presumption the Corne was severed and in this case no man can think that the Corne was severed when the words are half an acre of Corne on the contrary if the words had been that he had stollen so many loads or bushels of Corne And Gawdy was of the same opinion and Iudgment against the Plaintiff c. Hil. 38 Eliz. IN an Account the Plaintiff declared that he delivered Goods to the Defendant to Merchandize for him the Defend said that the Goods with divers other of his own proper goods werâ— taken at Sea where he was robbed of them And it was moved that this was no plea in Bar of an Account but if it be any plea it shall be a plea before Auditors in discharge But admitting it be a good Bar yet it is not well pleaded for the Plaintiff as it is pleaded cannot traverse the robbing and try it for things done super altum mare is not tryable here wherefore the Defendant ought to have pleaded that he was robbed at London or any other certain place upon the Land and maintain it by proofs that he was robbed on the Sea Gawdy It is no good plea for he hath confest himself to be accountable by the receipt 9 Ed. 4. and it is no plea before Auditors no more then the Case was in 9 Ed. 4. for a Carrier to say that he was robbed Popham It is a good plea before Auditors and there is a difference between Carriers and other Servants and Factors for Carriers are paid for their carriage and take upon them safely to carry and deliver the things received Gawdy If Rebels break a Prison whereby the Prisoners escape yet the Goaler shall be responsible for them as it is in the 33 H. 6. Popham In that case the Goaler hath remedy over against the Rebels but there is no remedy over in our case Gawdy Then the diversity is when the Factor is robbed by Pyrates and when by enemies Popham There is no difference Hil. 38 Eliz. Rot. 40. IN a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in Nottingham the Error assigned was because the Defendant had no addition for it appeared the Action was in Debt and the Record was that H. Hund complained against Richard Preston of c. in the County of Nottingham Husbandman the which addition is not in his first name but in the alias and that could not be good and therefore it was prayed that Iudgment might he reversed But by the Court the Court of Nottingham had no authority to outlaw any man so that addition is not requisite wherefore it is no Error and Iudgment was affirmed Trin. 37 Eliz. Rot. 553. Browne against Brinkley IN an Action of the Case for words the Declaration was That the Plaintiff was produced as a Witnesse before the Iustices at the Assises at Darby where he deposed in a certain cause and the Defendant said Browne was disproved before the Iustices of Assise at Darby before Mr. Kingsley Innuendo that he was disproved in his Oath that he took before the Iustices And adjudged against the Plaintiff for although he was disproved in his Oath yet it is not actionable in this case for that disproof might be in any collaterall matter or any circumstance but otherwise if the words had been that he was perjured and the Innuendo will not help the matter and so was it adjudged The chief Iustice and Fenner being onely in the Court. Trin. 36 Eliz. Higham against Beast IN an Action of Trespasse by the Parson of Wickhambrooke in the County of Suffolk against the Vicar of the same place for taking of Tythes and on the generall issue the Iury gave this speciall Verdict That the place where c. was a place called B. the Freehold of I.S. and parcell of the Mannor of Badmanshall and found that the Pope as supream Ordinary heretofore made such an Indowment to the Vicaridge in these words Volumus quod Vicarius c. habebit tertiam partem decimarum Bladorum Foeni quomodocunque pervenientem de
reason appears that the nature of the Lapse is to be taken hac vice and the King must take it then or not at all and where it is objected that by this means every Lapse may be taken from the King I conceive that far greater inconvenience will be to the Patrons on the other side for when a Lapse is devolded to the King and a stranger presents if then the true Patron may not present untill the death of such Incumbent perhaps the Incumbent will resign or be deprived and a stranger shall be presented again and again in like manner and so by this means the Patron shall never continue his advowson for by the Couin between the stranger and the neglect of the King to take his Lapse the Incâ—mbent shall never die And afterwards in this term it was adjudged that such usurpation shall not take away the Lapse from the King because the avoydance accrued by the act of the Incumbent Cook ib. 7.27 a. Hillary 29 Eliz. Lassell's Case LAssell brought an action of debt upon an obligation the Defendant pleads that the condition was that he should personally appear before the Iustices and set forth how he was taken by a Latitat by the Plaintiff who was Shiriff who took this obligation upon his deliverance and urged the Statute of 23 H. 6. and said that the obligation was not according to the Statute And by the Opinion of three Iustices Anderson being absent If it were in such an action wherein a man may appear by Atturney then it is void And the Plaintiff shewed a Iudgment given in the Kings Bench wherein in such case Iudgment was given for the Sheriffs and it was between Seekford and Cutts 27. 28. Eliz. Rot. 373. And the next Terme it was moved again Anderson The Obligation is voyd for when an express form is limited by the Statute no variance ought to be from it But the other three Iustices were against him for they held that he ought to appear in his proper person in case of a Latitat Anderson I deny that for Latitats have not been of above 60 years continuance Vid. Cook lib. 10. Beufages Case and his first Institutes 225. a. Pasch 25 Eliz. Kayre against Deurat in C. B. Rot. 603. IN a Waste the Plaintiff declared how the Defendant was seized in Fee and made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life the remainder to the Plaintiff in Fee after which he committed waste The Tenant said that he was seized in Fee without that he made a Feoffment as the Plaintiff declared and upon issue joyned it was found that the Defendant was seized in Fee and that he made a Feoffment to the use of himself for life of J.S. without impeachment of waste the remainder ut supra and whether this was the Feoffment which the Plaintiff alledged they prayed the advice of the Court. Anderson Chief Justice If the impeachment of waste be not part of their issue then the Verdict is voyd for that point and that which is found more than their issue is voyd 33 H. 6. the Defendant pleaded that he was not Tenant of the Free-hold and the Iury found that he held joyntly with another there the Plaintiff shall recover And then at another day it was said by the Iustices that the Iury had found such an estate as was alledged by the Plaintiff and although that they further found this priviledge to be dispunisht of waste which upon the matter proves that the Plaintiff hath no cause of action yet because the Tenant may choose whether he would take hold of this priviledge or not the Iury cannot finde a thing that is out of their Verdict and whereof the Defendant will not take advantage by pleading and for this cause their Verdict was voyd 7 H. 6.33 21 H. 7.12 where one pleaded in Bar a Feoffment and traversed the Feoffment and hereupon they were at issue and the Iury found that he had enfeoffed the Tenant after the Fine levyed to the Plaintiff this cannot be found because it is out of their issue 31 Assi 12. and Iudgement was given for the Demandant Hillar 29 Eliz. Michell against Donton in C. B. Rot 639. IN an Ejectment a man makes a Lease rendring Rent with a Covenant that the Lessee shall repair the houses with other Covenants and Conditions of re-entry for not performance and then he devised the same land to the same Lessee for divers years after the first years expired yielding the same Rent and under the same Covenants as in the former Lease and he devised the remainder in fee to the Plaintiff and the first Lease expires and the Defendant being possest by force of his second Lease doth not repair the houses and if the Plaintiff might enter was the question Shuttleworth In as much as he devised the land under the same Covenants as the first Lease was and the first was with Covenants and Conditions the second shall be so also the rather because he deviseth the remainder over so that the Devisee cannot take advantage of the Covenants but of the Conditions he may and the second Lease is conditional But the whole Court was against him Shuttleworth To what purpose then are these words in the Devise Under the same Covenants Periam They shall be voyd And by all the Iustices the intent of the Will was not that the Lease should be conditional for Covenants and Conditions differ much for the one gives an action but not the other but the intent was that he should perform the Covenants upon pain to render damages in a Writ of Covenant Bottenham against Herlakenden 29 30 Eliz. in C. B. Rot. 1620. HErlakenden was seized of land and devised the same to the Plaintiff for years the remainder to his wife for life Proviso that the Plaintiff should pay to the woman 20 l. per annum and if he failed of his payment c. wherefore the woman entred and if this shall be called reservation or reversion was the question Anderson A man cannot make a Reservation on a Devise Periam A man may to himself and his heirs but not to a stranger Anderson Every Devisee is in in the sier by the Devisor and why shall not this then be a reservation to the Devisor and a grant of the reversion to the woman Gawdy Wherefore cannot a man devise land reserving rent when by the Statute 32 H. 8. he may devise at his pleasure Periam Because his pleasure must correspond with the Law Anderson If I devise land to another reserving rent to me and my heirs and then devise the reversion he shall have the rent as incident to the reversion and the Iudges were divided wherefore c. 29 Eliz. Glover against Pipe in B. R. Rot. 838. IN debt upon a Bond the Condition was that where Glover the Plaintiff had a Copyhold of inheritance and had leased it to the Defendant if the Defendant should not commit any manner of waste and
this is voyd And after viz. 31 Eliz. It seemed to all the Iustices that the consideration was not good and therefore the contract voyd But if goods he delivered to an Infant to be re-delivered if Afterwards his Executor assumeth to re-deliver them this is good Gawdy in the 13 H. 6. If a man be indebted in a simple Contract and dye and his Executors assume to pay the debt it is good but â—his seems to be contrary to the Law for it is contrary to that which hath been lately adjudged in the Common Pleas. And Egerton cited a Caâ—e 10 H 6. where an Infant brought an Action of Trespass and submitted himself to an arbitrement this shall binde him at his full age and this was agreed by the Court but differs much from the Case at Bar for when an Infant commits a Trespass he is chargeable in an Action of Trespass and shall lose damages but it is not so here Wherefore Iudgement was given that the Plaintiff should be barred Mich. 30 Eliz. Stanton against Chamberlain Rot. IN an Action of Debt upon a Bond upon non est factum pleaded the Iury found that the Defendant sealed the Bond and cast it on the Table and the Plaintiff came and took up the Bond and carried it away without saying any thing and if this shall amount to a Delivery by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was the question And it was resolved by all the Iustices that if the Iury had found that he had sealed the Bond and cast it on the table towards the Plaintiff to the intent that the Plaintiff should take it as his Deed who took the Bond and went away that had been a good delivery or that the Plaintiff after the sealing and casting on the table had taken it by the commandment or consent of the Defendant but because it is found that the Defendant onely sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it and went away with it this is not a sufficient delivery for it may be that he sealed it to the intent to reserve it to himself untill other things were agreed and then if the Plaintiff take it and go away with it without the Defendants consent that will not make it the Descendants Deed. But it was said that it might be accounted to be the Defendants Deed because it is found that he sealed it and cast it on the table and the Plaintiff took it c. and it is not found that the Defendant said any thing and therefore because he did not say any thing it will amount to his consent Nam qui tacet consentire videtur But to this it was answered that it is not found that the Defendant was present when the Plaintiff took it and if the Defendant had sealed and cast the Bond on the Table when the Plaintiff was not there and then the Defendant went away and then the Plaintiff came and took it away then clearly it is not the Deed of the Defendant Hill 31 Eliz. Beron against Goodyne IN an Ejectment the Case was the King was seized of lands in Fee and a stranger intruded and the King grants this land to J. S. in Fee and the Intruder continues possession and dyes seized The question was if this descent shall take away the entry of I.S. Johnson It shall not for none will affirm that an Intruder shall gain any thing out of the King but that the land shall pass to the Patentee and the continuance of the Intruder in possession and his dying seized shall not take away the entry for he cannot be a Disseisor because he gained no estate at the beginning as if a Guardian continues possession after the heir is of full age he is no Disseisor nor shall gain any estate And 10 Ed. 3.2 where a tenant of the King dyes his heir within age and a stranger enters and after the heir is of full age dyes seized this shall not take away the entry of the heir Cook contr By his continuance of possession he shall be accounted a Disseisor and the Free-hold out of the Patentee for another estate he cannot have for tenant at sufferance be is not for he comes in at first by a title as in the 12 Assi The Dona's in Frank-marriage are divorced and the husband continues the possession and so where a Lessee continues possession after the death of the tenant for life these are tenants at sufferance and the Patentee hath a Free-hold in Law which is taken away by descent and denyed there was any such case as was vouched in the 10 Ed. 3. but compared the case to the 21 Ed. 3.2 where a Fine was levyed per conusans de droit come ceo c. if before the Conusee enters a stranger enters and dyes seized the entry of the Conusee is barr'd So is it where an Advowson is granted to J.S. and his heirs and a stranger usurps the Grantee hath no remedy And if a man deviseth land to J.S. and before he enters a stranger doth enter and dyes seized the entry of the Disseisee is taken away and so it is in our case But a further day was given Cook to shew cause why Iudgement should not be given against him Hillar 31 Eliz. Suttons Case in C. B. Rot. 533. IN an Ejectment the Iury gave a special Verdict that the Defendant nihil habens in terra did make a Lease thereof to the Plaintiff by Indenture according as the Plaintiff had declared and then the Defendant entred on the Plaintiff and whether this entry be good was the question Walmesley for the Defendant Iurors are sworn ad veritatem dicendum and therefore they shall not enquire of Estoppels because it is not in evidence But the whole Court was against him who held that the Iury might finde a matter that is not shewed in evidence for by Anderson in an Assize they may finde a Release although it be not given in evidence and he and Periam held that the Plaintiff ought to have Iudgement for that there was a good Lease between the parties and if Rent were reserved an Action of Debt would lye Windham contr For it is onely an Estoppell between the parties but the Court is at liberty and are not estopped when the truth appears to them and it is a Maxim in Law that he who hath nothing in the land cannot make a Lease and then the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action And afterwards viz. 32 Eliz. Anderson and Periam were expresly for the Plaintiff for whereas it hath been said that it was a Lease by Estoppell they held it was not so for that in Debt the Rent should be recovered And Anderson said If I levy a Fine of your land to you for years if you be put out I shall have an Assize but Windham was of opinion with Walmesley wherefore Periam said we will have the opinion of the other Iustices in the Exchequer Chamber wherefore c. Trinit 30 Eliz.
Writ is grounded upon a recovery by default in a reall action but a waste is a meere personall action And therefore in the 2 H. 4. in a waste against the husband and wife the wife shall not be received also it will not lie in this case because here is no default within the intent of the Statute for the Statute intends to relieve defaults after appearance and therefore all the Iudgment in this Writ is that the recovery was by default and if there was a default in pleading it is a default but not within the Statute Glanvill cont No waste is committed and so the recovery shall not bind for it appears in the 8 Ed. 4. by West That this action was provided instead of a Writ of right and there is no question but a Writ of right will lie here and this Writ is of the same nature And Mr Plowden in his Reading said that this action will lie upon a recovery upon a Writ of waste aswell as in other actions for the recovery is not upon the Inquiry of the Iury but upon default And it is also a reall action 7 Ed. 3. 28 Ed. 3.30 If the husband make default herein the wife shall be received Anderson There is no question but this action lies upon a recovery in waste but if this be a default within the Statute is a doubt for if this should be suffer d it were very mischievous for then contempts shall be favoured which was never the intention of the Statute and therefore it will not lie where there is a default after appearance Walmesley of the same opinion for this case differs much from the Statute of Glocester for this Statute gives remedy to a third person upon default of the particular Tenant and therefore upon this Statute the intent of the partie who makes default is more regarded than the manner of the default and therefore it shall be taken largely But here is default in the party himself and he shall have no favour against his willfull default for every nihil dicit is a confession of it self for thereupon it is supposed that nothing can be said Windham I hold that a Quod ei deforceat will not lie in a Writ of waste for the inquiry of the Iury is the cause of the Iudgment But he agreed that default within the Statute is intended such default that in it self is the cause of the Iudgment but here the Iudgment is given upon contempt and refusall of the party and therefore no favour Perryam This action cannot be compar'd to a writ of right which is grounded upon the right and not on the Iudgment but the form in the Quod ei deforceat is set down in the Statute which ought to be observed and the Statute gives this action upon a default and here is no default for it cannot be a default where the partie appears and hath no day in Court but he doubted much if it lay in awrit of waste because the damages are the principall but as the case is here it will not lie And to prove that a nihil dicit is a confession he cited Pepyss Ease in the Comentaries 438. And at last Iudgment was given that the Writ would not lye Pasch 35 Elizab. James against Portman WIlliam James and Thomas James Ioyntenants for life of a lease made by Portman William James doth assent covenant and agree that Thomas James occupy all the land alone and sow it with his own Corn After the land is sowed Thomas James dyes William James the survivor grants the Corne to Portman who takes it and the Plaintiff as executor to Thomas brought an action of trespass Ewens for the Defendant one Ioyntenant cannot make a Lease to his companion no more than one may infeof the other by reason they have joynt possession 10 Ed. 4.3 2 R. 2. Extinguishment 3. Also the words here are not sufficient to make a Lease but admitting this yet the survivor shall have the corn of that part which belongs to him for by this Lease the Ioynture is severed and then the Survivor shall have that which grows on his part For it two Ioyntenants sowe their land and one of them letts his moytie for years and he who did not let dyes the other shall have the corn as Survivor Pyne cont Although one Ioyntenant cannot inteof another because he cannot make livery because he hath possession before yet may he Release to his companion and so may he make a Lease for years for there is no need of any livery and by the 22 H. 6.43 If one Ioyntenant infeofs another this shall enure by way of confirmation And 14 H. 6.10 One Ioyntenant may put out his companion by this means for he may clayme a Lease from him and then a Release and if it be a good Lease then the Executors shall have it Popham The action is good for one Ioyntenant may make a Lease to the other although he cannot infeof for a Lease is but a contract And 11 H. 6.33 one Ioyntenant commanded the other to occapy all and in a trespass he was compelled to plead this as a Lease and then if one Ioyntenant does sow all and dyes the other shall have the Corne by Survivor and it is not as in case where a man hath an estate determinable upon uncertainty for there his Executors shall have the Corn but in our case the Survivor had contracted with his companion and thereby had bound himself not to meddle with the land and the other bestowed great costs in manuring and sowing the Land and therefore the Executors shall have the Corn. Fenner agreed but doubted whether one Ioyntenant could make a Lease to the other but said that by the contract he had excluded himself from the proffits and by the 39 Ed. 3.27 one Ioyntenant may have an account against the other And he said that if I agree that you shall sow my Land with me you shall gain no interest in the land and yet you shall have the corne And one Ioyntenant may distreyn for himself and as Bayly for the other And the Cause was adjourned and afterwards viz. Hillary 36 Eliz. the case was repeated And Gawdy said That if there be two Ioyntenants and one grants to the other that he may sow the Land yet may the other occupie with him for these words do not transfer any sole interest but if he sayes that he shall occupy all the Land and shall sow it solely this does exclude him from having any interest with him Popham Agreed because this is but a contract and so of a Lease for years Gawdy If one Ioyntenant sayes to the other that he will not occupie the Land with him or that he will not put in his Cattle this does not transfer any interest but that he may occupie with him and so in this case if it had not been said that he should occupy solely Popham of the same opinion for where he sayes he will not occupy
was upon the pleading Taylor being Lessee for years 9 Elizabeth did grant and assigne this to Ayer the Plaintiff The Defendant pleaded that before the grant made to Ayer sc 8 Elizabeth Taylor did grant and assigne his estate to the Defendant without traversing the gift made to the Plaintiff Williams There needs no traverse for being granted the 8 Elizab. it is impossible it should be granted 9 Eliz. 2 Edw. 6. and 1 H. 5. Anderson He ought to travers for it is impossible to confesse and avoyd a grant by confession that was granted to another before for if it were so the second grant is voyd and so being so confest here ought to be a travers Walmesley cont in 32 H. 6. it is sufficient to say that at another day c. there was another arbitrement c. for by that the first arbitrement is voyd in Law And it is a good plea in a Will that after that there was another Will made without Traversing and there is difference between Lands and Chattells for land may be gotten out of a man by wrong and therefore it may be that after the feoffment the Feoffor entred and it disseised the Feoffee and did infeoffe another but it cannot bâ— so here of a terme for years for no man can take it away from the Lessee by wrong Glanvill and Kingsmill cont There must be a Traverie for there ought to be a confession before there can be an avoydance but here he does not confess the grant but pleads matter that denies it being granted And at last Anderson gave Iudgment that he ought to Travers 42 Eliz. Rudd against Topsey in C. B. Rot. 135. IN a Quare Impedit The Iury found that Edward Capell was seised of an Advowson in Fee and did let it to the Defendant for years and during the Lease he presented the Defendant and the doubt was whether this were a surrender or an Extinguishment And it was held by all the Iustices that this could not be a surrender but is cleerly an extinguishment For if a man does present to his own Church as Proctor to another by this he looseth his advowson Nat. Br. 25.17 Ed. 33.24 H. 6. Hillar 42 43 Eliz. Forrest against Ballard Rot. 2480. AN Audita querela was brought upon a Statute which was acknowledged before a Maior who had no power to take it Anderson An Audita querela will not lie upon a voyd Statute But Kingsmill Walmesley and Warburton cont and Walmesley cited 〈◊〉 Br. 102. where an Audita querela was brougt upon a forg'd Statute and there it would lie upon a Statute made by Duress 20 Ed. 3.28 Trinit 40. Eliz. Goodrick against Cooper in C. B. Rot. 1259. IN a Replevin the Defendant justified for Rent granted to the Master and Schollers of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge And the Iury found that one Spendelose being seised of the land where c. by his Deed did grant to the said Master and Fellowes a Rent Ch. of 40 l. per annum for ever and that Spendlose did seale his part of the Indenture and delivered it to the use of the Master and Fellowes to one J.S. to deliver it accordingly but there was no dead to shew their receit thereof and then they sealed the other part but they made no Attorney to deliver it and it was â—ound that the Rent was payd for divers years after VValmesley Although no Letter of Attorney were made yet it is good for by their sealing of the Counterpart there is a sufficient agreement to the grant As it a Reversion be granted to a Corporation by Deed although they cannot accept of this but by Attorney yet if they bring a waste this is a sufficient agreement to vest it in them Quod assi Justiciarii concesserunt And judgment was given for the Avowant Michaelm 43 44. Eliz. Claygate against Batchelor in C. B. Rot. 3217. IN debt upon a Bond of thirty pound the Condition was that if Robert Batchelor son to the Defendant did use the Trade of Haberdasher as Iourneyman servant or Apprentice or as a Master within the County of Kent within the Cities of Canterbury and Rochester within four years after the date that then if he pay twenty pound upon request the Obligation to be voyd And all the Iustices agreed that the condition was against Law and then all is voyd for it is against the liberty of a Free-man and against the Statute of Magna Carta cap. 20. and is against the Commonwealth 2 H 5. 5. And Anderson said that he might aswell bind himself that he would not go to Church And Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Michaelm 43 44 Eliz. Dogget against Dowell in C. B. Rot. 65â— IN an action on the Case upon an Assumpsit The Plaintiff declared that at the request of the Defendant he had lent to him 30 l. the 10th day of May 5 Eliz. and the Defendant in consideration thereof viz. the second day of May aforesaid did promise and assume upon himself that he at the end of the yeare would lend the Plaintiff other thirty pounds for a year or give to him five pound It was said that the consideration is good for although the promise was made at another day yet is it in pursuance thereof so that in Law it shall be accounted all at one time and is not like to the case in Dyer 372. where the Master promised one who was bayle for his servant that he would save him harmless this is no consideration for the Ballment was of his own will and was executed before the Assumpsit but if the Master had first requested and afterwards assumed there it is good and so was it adjudged in the case of one Sydenham against Worthington Trinit 27 Eliz. Rot. 748. Where the request was before and the promise after and there it was a good Assumpsit VVarburton agreed And it is like as if I should say to you do such a thing and I will give you five pound this is no good contract But all the Iustices on the contrary for when at the first day the Plaintiff did lend to the Defendant thirty pound that was absolute and the speaking on the second day cannot have such reference to the first agreement that it shall be accounted all one Anderson If I say to one In consideration you will serve me for a year I will give you five pound here is no cause of action for the consideration is precedent and not mutuall and so judgment was entred for the Defendant Hillar 41 Eliz. VVentworth against VVright Rot. 2529. IN a Quare impedit two points were moved 1. If the Parson be made Bishop whether the Patron should present or the King by his prerogative VVilliams The King shall for before the Statute the Pope should present and the reason was because the Bishop had received his presentment gratis from the Pope and by the same reason the King now
Estoppell otherwise if it were by Deed. Vid. 1 H. 7.12 Mich. 32 33 Eliz. Marshes Case in B. R. Rot. 1011. MArsh and his wife brought a Writ of Errour as Executors to Nicholson to reverse an Outlawry upon an Indictment of Felony pronounc'd against the Testator Altham of Grayes-Inne The sole point was whether the Executors may have a Writ of Errour and I hold that they may for if there be no heir it is great reason that the Executors should have it for otherwise the erroneous judgement cannot be at all reverst and every one shall have a Writ of Errour that is damaged by the erroneous judgement and Executors have right to the personal estate to have Errour For if a man recovers damages in a Writ of Cosenage and the land also and dyes his heir shall have Execution for the land and the Executors Execution for the damages by the 19 Ed. 4.5 43 Eâ— 3. 13 Ed. 4.2 If a man does recover my villain by a false Verdict the heir shall have an attaint for the villany and the Executors for the damages and a Writ of Errour shall be given to him to whom the right of the thing lost doth descend as it was adjudged in the Case of Sir Arthur Henningham and he cited two presidents in the point 1 Tâ—…ity 11 H. 8. Rot. 3. where an Administrator brought a Writ of Errour to reverse a Iudgement given in an exigent Vid. 2 Rep. 41. a. Cook contr In Natura Brevium 21 M. he sayes an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour upon a Iudgement given in Debt against the Testator and the heir shall have Error to reverse Outlawry in Felony and to restore him in his blood and he said that it was part of the punishment in Felony to have the blood corrupted sic filius portat iniquitatem patris and by reason of the attainder he cannot inherit any Ancestor wherefore he having the damage it is reason that he should reverse it And although Executors shall have a Writ of Errour for Chattels personal yet they shall not have one when they are mixt with things real 5 H. 7.15.18 Ed. 4. If Writings be in a Box the heir shall have the Box because real things are more regarded than personal Nevertheless in this Case the Writ of Errour is in a real Action for the Law sayes that it is in the same nature as in original action whereupon it is brought as if Errour be brought to reverse a Iudgement given in a personal action the Writ of Errour is personal and so in like manner is it real if the first action be real 47 Ed. 3.35 35 H. 6.19 23. and although the first action be mixt yet the Law does rather respect the reality 30 H. 6. Barr. 59. where two brought an assize and one did release and there it was said that although this were a mixt action yet it shall be according to the most worthy and that is the reality and 16 Assi 14. divers Disseisors being barr'd in an assize did bring a Writ of attaint for the damages and summons and severance was suffered for damages were joyned with the reality and Stanford 184. If a man be indicted before a Coroner quod fugam fecit if he after reverse the Indictment yet he shall have his goods for de minimis non curat Lex But note that the Iustices said that the fugam fecit was the cause of forfeiture of the goods and not the Felony And as to the presidents he agreed to the Case of the 18 H. 7. for an Executor shall have a Writ of Errour to reverse Iudgement given in an exigent for there nothing but the goods are forfeit 30 H. 6. Forfeiture 31. and for the president in 11 H. 8. it cannot be proved that the Outlawry was for Felony Vid. Rep. fol. 3. 33 Eliz. Lilly against Taylor in B. R. Rot. 467. MArsh seized of the land in question did devise this to Rose Lilly for life and if she fortun'd to marry and after her decease should have any heirs of her body lawfully begotten then that heir should have the land and the heirs of the body of such heir and for default of such issue the land shall revert to Philip Marsh his son and his heirs and the question was if the husband of Rose shall be Tenant by the curtesy or not and so if Rose had estate Tail or for life onely Godfrey She hath estate but for life and he cited a Case adjudged in Benlowes Reports 40 Eliz. where lands are devised to A for life and after his decease to the male children of his body and it was adjudged that the male children have an estate Tail by purchase and nothing by descent and so A had nothing but for life Gawdy agreed for she hath but for life and when she dyes her issue shall have it Popham agreed if the words were that if she had issue that he should have it But Clench held that she had an estate in Tail executed and that her husband shall be Tenant by the curtesy Fenner The issue is as a Purchaser for the Devisor intended that Rose should not have a greater estate than for life And also it was agreed by all the Iustices that a Devise to a man and his heir shall be accounted a Foe-simple for that the word heir is collective and so is the 29 Assi where land was given to a man and to the heir of his body uno haeredi ejusdem haeredis this is an estate Tail Popham He shall be Tenant by the curtesy and he agreed that heir of the body was a good name of purchase but if a Frank-tenement be limited to his Ancestor and by the same Deed it is also limited to his heir the heir shall be in by descent But Fenner on the contrary Pasch 38 Eliz. Bolton against Bolton Rot. 882. 582. TEnant for life being impleaded doth pray in aid of him in the Reversion who joyn and lose c. and the Tenant for life brings a Writ of Errour and the Record is removed and he in the remainder brings a Writ of Errour also De Recordo quod coram vobis residet and the question was upon which Writ of Errour the Iudgement should be reverst and it was objected that if it should be reverst by the Tenant for life that he in the remainder should be restored But Gawdy Fenner and Clench contr Who held that it should be reverst at his suit who first brings the Writ as in case of Interpleader it shall be alwayes upon the first Writ And notwithstanding the removing of the Record by the Tenant for life at the next term the Court said it was at their discretion to reverse this at suit of anâ— of the parties as they pleased and because they observed some indirect practices by him in the remainder it was reverst at suit of Tenant for life Pasch 5 Jacob. Sir Henry Dimmocks Case in the