23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
of giving the Reversion by her Will to whom she pleased and such a Grantee shall be in by A. and his Will for A. hath given expresly to his wife for life and therefore by Implication she shall not have any further Estate But if an express Estate had not been appointed to the wife by the other words an Estate in Fee should have passed Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXI Sir Thomas Kemp and Windsors Case SIr Thomas Kemp was outlawed at the Suit of one Windsor who had against him four Capias utlagat ' and none of them were served and afterwards he sued out a fifth Capias It was moved by Mead that the said Sir Thomas keepeth open House and yet the Sheriff had not served the Capias Dyer The Sheriff may justifie to break the House to take his body and seize his Goods for the Queen for this Process is in Law at the Suit of the Queen but contrary where the Process is sued at the Suit of a Subject And the Iustices commanded Ford Prothonotary to make a special Capias for Body and Goods and a pain in the Writ of 100 l. upon the Sheriff to execute the Writ accordingly CXII Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THis Case was moved by Anderson Serjeant at Law Improvement of Common if in case of Common appurtenant by Prescription without number the Lord of the waste might improve for it is not admeasurable therefore not improveable for the Common being without number the sufficiency cannot be proved Dyer and Manwood Iustices although it be without number yet it may be reduced to a certainty being by Prescription as the number of the Cattel and the best and most substantial Tenant of the said Tenement at any time within time of memory had kept upon the said waste and then the Plaintiff the Lord might improve leaving sufficient according to such Rate Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXIII The Earl of Derbys Case Debt not against the Husband upon a Contract by the Wife DEbt by a Merchant of London against the Earl of Derby and his Wife and declared upon a Contract for Silks and it appeared upon the Evidence that the Countess during the Coverture had bought of the Plaintiff certain Silks for her own wearing and for the mony which the Countess agreed to pay for the same the Action was brought It was the Opinion of Dyer Manwood and Mounion that the contract by the Wife during the Coverture should not bind the Husband but admit that the Husband should be bound yet this Action is not well brought against the Wife for she ought not to be mentioned in the Writ CXIV Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Indictments ONe was indicted in the Country because he commanded J.S. to take up a Bridge being in Regia via leading from such a Town to such a Town and also the said J. S. was indicted for executing the command of the other Exception was taken to the first Indictment because no place of the commandment is alledged in the Indictment and for that cause the Indictment was taken insufficient although Mr. Plowden strongly insisted upon the contrary as in Trespass the Defendant justifies by the commandment of J. S. the same is good without any place of the commandment for in the first Case the commandment is traversable but contrary put by Mr. Plowden Vide 3 H. 7. 11. Markenfields Case Another Exception was taken to the Indictment because it is not there alledged that the Bridge was a common Bridge but because there was other words in the Indictment which supplyed the same scil in via Regia the Indictment was holden good enough CXV 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a writ of Partition between Tenants in common upon the Statute of 20 Acres of Land the Defendant as to part scil 10 Acres pleaded Non tenet pro indiviso and as to the residue confessed the Partition and by Manwood and Ford chief Prothonotary the confession ought to be in the beginning of the Plea and Non tenet pro indiviso in the second place last so as that part of the Plea which agrees with the Demand ought to preceed the part which denies demand And the truth of the Case was that the Defendant had but 10 Acres in all and of them was sole seized Manwood If your Case be such you may safely plead to the whole Non tenet pro indiviso 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXVI Duffams Case A Man made a Lease by Deed indented for 20 years to begin after the expiration of a former Lease thereof made to one Duffam in an Action brought by the second Lessee against the Lessor the Lessor said there was no such Duffam in rerum natura at the time of the supposed Lease made to Duffam It was said that such a Plea did not lye for the Lessor Estoppel for he is estopped to say against the Indenture that no such Duffam was c. And also if no such person was then the first Lease was void and the second Lease should begin presently which Mounson and Manwood concesserunt And Manwood said that the Defendant should be estopped by the recital of the first Lease to say that no such Duffam was and although that the common ground is that a recital is not any estoppel yet where the recital is not material as it is here for the second Lease is to be begun upon the expiration of the Lease recited there is an estoppel Recital Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXVII Brown and Fulsbyes Case UPon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Vsury the Case was this Stat. 5 Eliz. of Usury A. borrowed of B. 80 l. and was bound in an Obligation to pay to him 90 l. at the end of the year It was the Opinion of the Iustices that although the 90 l. was tendred and B. the Lender did tell the same yet if he take and except but of 80 l. it is not Vsury within the Statute to make a treble forfeiture but yet in that Case the Obligation it self is void CXVIII Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte in the Case of the Tenants of Owning and Northmaston It was holden by Manwood Chief Baron That he who hath vesturam terrae cannot dig the Land. And Gent Baron said where many have Lot-Meadow to be divided every year by lot who shall have the Grass of such an Acre and who of such an Acre c. and so change every year according to Lots they have not any Freehold therein but only Vesturam terrae Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXIX Sir Walter Wallers Case 3 Leon. 259. Execution a Leon. 77. IN the Case of Sir Walter Waller it was moved if one hath Iudgment in Debt and thereupon within the year and day sueth a Capias ad satisfaciend although he doth not prosecute the same in two or three years yet when he pleaseth he may proceed
taken to it because in the Margent was written Middlesex and in the Indictment they both were named of London and afterwards in the proceedings the words are That Weshbourn and Brown entred in such manner in Com. praedict and that is incertain what County is intended Middlesex or London but the Exception was not allowed for London before is not expressed to be accounted but only implyed Another Exception was because they had not any addition but it was not allowed for it appeared to the Court. And after it was moved upon the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 11 that no Restitution upon such Indictment should be granted if â—he party indeed had had the Occupation or had been in quiet possession for three years next before the day of the Indictment and in the Case at Bar the Master hath been in possession by three years but the Parties indicted being his Servants had been with him but for one year it was thereby holden by the Court that upon the matter Restitution should not be granted for the possession of the Master in this Case takes away all Restitution and that by the Statute Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXIX Canons and Osborns Case A. Seized of a Rent in Fee granted the same by Fine to B. to the use of C. It was moved to whom the Ter-tenant should attorn And by Walmesly Periam and Windham there needs not any Attornment to the Conusee because all the right of the Rent is out of the Conusor Attornment and transferred to Cestuy que use instantly And Walmesly cited this Case to have been lately adjudged A Reversion in Fee upon a Lease for years was granted by Fine to A. to the use of B. B. without Attornment brought an Action of Waste and it was adjudged that the Action did well lye CXXX Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for years is made by Deed Indented rendring Rent and the Lessor covenants that the Lessee paying his Rent shall enjoy the Land demised for the whole term the Lessee did not pay the Rent and afterwards is ejected by a Title peramount By Walmesly and Windham Iustices that the Covenant is conditional and that the Lessee should not have advantage of it if he did not perform the Condition which is created by this word paying Periam Iustice was strongly to the contrary viz. that the word paying did not create a Condition Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXI Thetford and Thetfords Case THe Case was an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff declared that Land was given to A. and B. his Wife Leases and the Heirs of their Bodies and that he and his Wife leased for years to the Defendant Baron and Feme and that the Donees were dead and that the Plaintiff as Heir c. for Rent behind c. And upon Non dimiserunt the Iury found that the Husband and Wife dimiserunt by Indenture and that after the Husband died and the Wife entred and within the term died Agreement Disagreement Now upon this matter Anderson Iustice conceived clearly that the Iury have found for the Defendant scil Non dimiserunt for it is now no Lease ab initio because the Plaintiff hath not declared upon a Deed and also the Wife by her disagreement to it and Occupation of the Land after the Death of her Husband had made it to be the Lease of her Husband only Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXII Acton and Pitchers Case IN a Writ of second Deliverance by Acton against Pitcher Leases within 32 H. 8. It was moved if a Lease made by a Prebendary were within the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. because the said Statute speaks of men seized in the right of their Churches and a Prebendary is seized in right of his Prebend and not in right of the Church But it is the Opinion of the whole Court that he was within the Equity of the Statute Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXIII Curtises Case IN a Writ of Error it was holden in the Common Pleas Amendment that if a Writ of Error be brought and delivered to the Chief Iustice de Communi Banco and allowed by him under his hand that afterwards the Record cannot be amended by Prothonotary Attorney or Clerk of the Court although that no Record be entred upon the Roll upon which the Writ of Error is brought Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXIV Scots Case SCot brought a Formedon against A. who made default after default Resceit Anders 133. and now came B. and surmised to the Court that C. was seized of the Land in Demand and gave the same to A. in Tail the remainder to the said B. in Fee and prayed to be received and afterwards the Court upon advice ousted him of the Resceit 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXV Terrets and the Hundred of c. Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry against the Hundred of c. the Defendants pleaded Not Guilty Action upon Statute of Huy and Cry. And in Evidence the Plaintiff to prove that he was robbed offered to the Iury his Oath in verifying his Declaration which Anderson and Periam utterly refused to accept of but Windham Iustice affirmed that such an Oath had been accepted of in the Case of one Harrington Oaths where the Plaintiff could not have other Evidence to prove the Cause in respect of secresie for those who have occasion to travel about their occasions would not acquaint another what monies or other things which they have in their journey and we see that the Law doth admit of the Oath of the Party in his own cause where the Oath shall make an end of the cause as in Debt where the Defendant wageth his Law. Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such an Oath be accepted of us in this case by the same reason in all causes where is secrecy and no external proof whereupon would follow great inconvenience and although such an Oath hath been accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we do not see any reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de Denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth that the Plaintiff was Receivor of the Lady Rich and had received the said mony for the use of the said Lady And Exception was taken to the same by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed of for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich for the said mony And it was agreed that if he which was robbed after he had made Huy and Cry doth not further pursue the Felons yet his Action lyeth Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVI Townsend and Pastors Case Feoffment by Coparceners Cestuy que uses NOte It was holden in the Common Pleas by
the Office. Vide Stanford Prerogat 54 55. and Vide 20 E. 4. 11. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant is attainted of Treason the Church void the King without any Office shall have the presentment But admitting that it is not in the King without Office yet the Pardon of 23 Eliz. doth not extend to it For the words of the Pardon are Treasons Felonies Offences Contempts Trespasses Entries Wrongs Deceits Misdemeanors Forfeitures Penalties and Sums of Moneys and if by any of these words the matter be helped is to be considered and if any thing shall help it it is the word Forfeiture But I conceive that the same doth not extend to this matter for although it be an ample word yet it shall be construed to extend beyond the words accompanied with it which concern only personal things as Contempts Wrongs Trespasses as the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which is penned by general words as Colledges Deans and Chapters Parsons Vicars and others having Spiritual Promotions that Statute doth not extend by construction to Bishops and they have Spiritual Promotion yet the Statute shall be construed to extend to the Parties named and other Inferiour Orders and Degrees and shall not be extended higher So in the Commission of the Peace ad diversas Felonias alia Malafacta c. those general words do not extend to Treason c. Vide for the Residue of this Case Venable and Harris's Case which was the same Case and is Reported in Leonard 2 Part fol. 122. Placito 169. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXIX Downhall and Catesoy's Case IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 3 Leon. 267. the Parties were at Issue and it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Bank because that some of the Iury did eat and drink before they gave their Verdict that the Court would not receive the Postea Curia that we cannot do for we not know whether your Information be true or not and this matter ought to be examined by the Iustices of Assize or Nisi prius before whom the Trial was and they are to certifie thereof and then we shall have good cause to stay the Entry of the Postea In that Case it was said If any of the Iurors eat and drink before their Verdict at their own Costs it doth not make the Verdict void but if at the Costs of the Plaintiff or Defendant it is otherwise CCXXX Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Sheriff took an Obligation of a Prisoner bailable upon condition that he should personally appear in the Kings Bench c. It was holden a good Condition not against the Statute of 23 H. 6. So if the Condition had been that he should appear for to answer contrary that he shall appear and answer for in the principal Case the word personally is not of substance for although he appears by Attorney yet the Condition is well performed and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anderson reclamante Vide 27 Eliz. B. R. Sedford and Cutts Case 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXXI Haselwoods Case THe Case of Haselwood A seized of Land is indebted to the King by Obligation and enfeoffed B. of his Land And the Case of Fleetwood 15 Eliz. was vouched where it was holden That in purchase the debtor of the King was lyable But by Pigot who was of Counsel with Haselwood the Obligation in this Case was made before the Statute of 33 H. 8. or otherwise he should be charged 32 Eliz. CCXXXII Sir William Pelhams Case SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordinances and delivered of the Kings money to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden That for that money the Queen might have Account against Painter See this Case before Sect. 81. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXIV. Ognell and Vnderhills Case IN Replevin the Case was as appeared upon the pleading That Rob. Bouchier was seized of a certain Farm called Cruchefield Grange and leased the same to Sir William Raynsford for thirty years who dyed thereof possessed by reason of which the Interest thereof came to Raynsford as Executor of the said Sir William Raynsford who assigned the said Farm except a parcel of it called Hobbes to Sir Henry Bear for parcel of the term and afterwards assigned the said parcel called Hobbes for part of the term to Frekington and others and afterwards granted the residue of the said term not expired to the said Bear and Frekington and afterwards the said Rob. Bouchier granted a Rent-charge of 40 l. per annum percipiendum de omnibus terris renementis quibuscunque vocat the Grange of Cruchefield in the Parish of Stoneleigh in the County of Warwick nuper in tenura occupatione William Raynsford milit nunc in tenura occupatione Hen. Bear. Bouchier granted the reversion of Hobbes to Lewknor in Fee to whom Scarre releaseth all his right estate and demand in the said Land called Hobbes the Lease expired the rent behind Lewknor leased at will to R. the first Question was If the said Rent-charge shall be said issuing out of the said Lands called Hobbes for if c. then by that Release the rent is gone But the whole Court was clear of Opinion That the rent was not issuing out of Hobbes but out of the Lands then in the possession of Bear and not out of the Lands in the possession of Frekington Although it was objected by Walmesley Serjeant That the words in the Grant of the rent in tenura occupatione Bear shall be construed in the disjuncive quasi sive and then the Close called Hobbes although it was not in the Occupation yet it was in tenura of Bear. The Matter was at another day argued by Fenner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he much relyed upon the word quibuscunque in the Grant of the Rent de omnibus terris quibuscunque commonly called Cruchefield Grange As if I grant to you all my Trees my Apple-trees shall not pass but if the Grant was omnes arbores meas quascunque they pass and that by the Emphasis of this word Quibuscunque So if I grant you Common for your Cattel in such a place none shall have Common but those which are Commonable shall have Common there contrary where the Grant is pro averiis quibuscunque And it was adjudged in the Chancery in the Case of the Bishop of Ely That where the said Bishop leased all the Demeasns of a Manor for years that by the said Lease the Park within the said Manor should not pass But perhaps if such a Lease had been Omnes singulas terras dominicales quascunque the Park would have passed And afterwards the Counsel of the Plaintiff seeing that the Court was of Opinion with the Defendant took Exception to the pleading The Defendant made Conusans ut Ballivus Administratoris of the Grantee of the Rent and doth not shew the Letters of Administration And as to
by a Writ of Right So if the Vouchee had entred and lost c. As to that Case we ought to consider That every Book reported in our Law is not Law But let us observe of what Authority the Case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves it but there is no Iudge or Serjeant named in the Case c. The other Case is 5 E. 4. 2. Note by Hendon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the Warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the reversion of him who hath in value shall be to me in lieu of my former reversion as release to Tenant for life shall enure to him in the reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these Books If the Demandant in such recovery have a good title so as the Tenant or the Voucher as Hendon saith know not how to bar the Demandant there such a Voucher of a Stranger is not a Forfeiture nor such recovery suffered thereupon for against his will and volens nolens he suffered it But if the Tenant had good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher that the vouching of a stranger or suffering of a recovery is a Forfeiture of his Estate And here in our Case the Defendant had not any title The Tenant or Vouchee had not any Warranty or cause of Voucher But the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he pleased And he said That the Voucher only doth not make the Forfeiture but much rather the Recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution had then is the Fee plucked out of him in the reversion 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee it is a Forfeiture but here Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à Fortiori it shall be a Forfeiture But let us a little see what medlings or attempts by the particular Tenant are causes of a Forfeiture and what not 5 Ass 3. Where A. brings an Entry against Tenant for life by collusion to oust B. of his reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease The Tenant confesseth the Action upon which Iudgment is given B enters and his entry adjudged lawful for that recovery is adjudged in Law but an Alienation to the disinherisin of him in the reversion and here it appears That such recovery by Covin is but an Alienation and without any strength of a recovery And he cited many other Cases cited before by Altham 14 E 3. Resceit 135. Where Tenant for life pleads in chief or prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and will not it is a Forfeiture And also 22 E. 3. 2. 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat Attorns unto the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him who hath not any thing in the Land the same is a Forfeiture and yet that Attornment doth not divert the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3.7 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the remainder over to a stranger in Fee the Donee took a Wife and dyed without Issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the Remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife that she is Tenant in Dower of the Assignment of a stranger and pleaded to the Title the Demandant recovered she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded dutifully as she ought being a particular Tenant Temps H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an Estate tail and recovers the same is a Forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate c. 5 H. 7. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer Right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger sur Conusans c. come ceo que il ad de son done All these are Forfeitures In our principal Case here the Tenant who suffered the Recovery did not plead at all to defend the Right but where he might have barred the Demandant he gave strength to his pretended Title and made it a perfect Title and by suffering the Recovery and Iudgment to pass had taken away the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore it is a Forfeiture And without doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title for the Recoverers in such Cases are but Assignees and Purchasors which appeareth by the Statute of 7 H. 8. cap. 4. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverers c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary Device for it was to take away Estate tails which were the causes of grand Mischiefs and Inconveniencies in this Realm and it was great reason for Tenant in tail might by the Common Law alien his Land post prolem suscitat and then he had an Inheritance and might commit Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of Westm 2. all the Realm and the Subjects of it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Farmers Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances defeated by their deaths which was against the Common Law and all Conscience These matters tending to the knowledge of the Iustices and the Mischiefs thereupon ensuing very frequent and that Tenant in tail was become a perillous Fellow and there was no safe dealing with him Then they taking into consideration that several Warranties and Assets and collateral Warranty without Assets for that in it self implyed Assets did bar him Icil. the Entail upon that consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries so that by that means Tenant in tail has potestatem alienandi as he had at the Common Law because his authority was restored to him and injury done to no man But as to Tenant for life he never had potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the Recovery shall stand in force till after the death of the Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is living certainly if the Law should be such great mischief would follow for then greater Ioyntresses the Widows of great Persons having allowed unto them great and sumptuous Houses and Lands furnished with Timber of great value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit Waste and the same should be dispunishable c. which should be an intolerable Mischief And so he concluded that this suffering of a Recovery was a Forfeiture and Iudgment was given accordingly CCLII Grendon and Albanies Case JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Tho Albany And upon the pleading the Case
Defendant that these Matters of Forgery were not within the Statute of 5 Eliz. nor also the Perjury or the procurement thereof upon which the Lords of the Council there Upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. of Perjury referred the consideration of the said Statute to both the Chief Iustices who at the next day in Court declared their Opinions upon the said Matters i. e That the said Matters did not extend to the Forgery of a Deed containing a gift of Chattels personals which see clearly by the Statute which as to that purpose extends but to Obligations Bills Obligatorie Acquittances Releases or other Discharges and that also a Deed of Assignment of a Lease of Lands in Ireland is not within the said Statute and also they were of opinion that the said Perjury and the procurement of it was not punishable by the said Statute because the Oath was taken coram non Judice for the Town-Clerk of London could not take an Oath in such a case Note no more than a private person But because that the Bill in the perclose and conclusion of it was contrary to the Laws and Statutes of this Realm the two Chief Iustices were of Opinion That the said Court might punish these Offences as Misdemeanors at the Common Law but not according to the Statute and afterwards Shyriffe was fined and by Order of the Court to stand upon the Pillory Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer Chamber LXXX The Queen and Lord Vauxes Case Bills IN the Exchequer Chamber before the Chancellor c. the Lord Vaux brought a Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given against him in the Court of Exchequer and assigned for Error that a Bill was exhibited against him that the Lord Vaux had taken certain goods of the Queen at Westminster in the County of Middlesex and also had intruded into the Rectory of Ethelborough in the County of Northampton whereas the Queen ought to have brought several Bills being for several causes arising within several Counties But it was resolved by the whole Court That the Bill of the Queen was good enough and here is no mischief for if the Defendant will plead Not Guilty two several Venire Facias shall be awarded one into Middlesex the other into the County of Northampton Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXXXI Owen and Morgans Case GEorge Owen brought a Scire Facias against Morgan to have Execution of a Fine levied 8 Eliz. by which Fine the land was given to the Conusee and his heirs the Conusee rendred the same to the husband and wife and to the heirs of the body of the husband Note that the husband was the Conusor the remainder in Fee to the now Demandant and note that the Writ of Covenant was between the Conusee Plaintiff and the husband Deforceant without naming the wife And afterwards the husband suffered a common Recovery without naming of the wife Common Recovery the hushand and wife died without Issue and now Owen to whom the remainder was limited by the Fine brought a Scire Facias in bar of which the Recovery was pleaded It was argued by Shuttleworth Serjeant That the said Recovery had against the husband was a good bar Feme not party to the Writ of Covenant not bound by a Recovery and should bar the remainder and the wife ought not to be named in or party to the Recovery for that nothing accrued to her by the Fine because she was not party to the Writ of Covenant and to the Conusans vide 32 H. 8. Fines 108. None can take by the Fine but those who are named in the Writ of Covenant but every Stranger may take by way of Remainder Vide etiam 7 E. 3. Br. Fines 114. 6 E. 3. Fitz. Fines 117. 7 E. 3. Fitz. Scire Facias 136. It is said by Herle if such a Fine ut supra be taken it is good as long as it is in force LXXXII Sir Richard Lee and Arnolds Case Post 93. SIr Richard Lee Kt. seized of three Manors made a lease of them to Sir Nicholas Arnold for certain years reserving for the one Manor 5 l. and for the other Manor 10 l. and for the third Manor 10 l. upon condition that if the said rents or any of them or any part c. be behind a re-entry into all the Manors and afterwards he bargained and sold the reversion of one of the said Manors to William Winter in Fee and afterwards by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the two other Manors and for the rent of one of the said Manors the Vendee did re-enter into all the Manors Manwood Here are several reservations Reservation of Rents upon a joynt Lease several rents and several leases for although that the words are joynt yet by construction they are become several as Land given to an Abbot and a Secular man although here be joynt words yet they are Tenants in Common Litt. 296. And if I sell to you two Horses the one for 5 l. and the other for 5 l. here are two several contracts the Parties to whom these reversions are assured ut supra are Assignees within the Statute of 32 H. 8. by which it is enacted that Assignees may take advantage of Conditions for such an Assignee is not meerly in by act of law as the Lord by Escheat and he is not such an Assignee but is in by conveyance The Lessor enters upon his Lessee Assigns and makes his Feoffment and the Lessee re-enters now the Feoffee is an Assignee and this condition is destroyed in part and continued in part Condition destroyed in part good in part If one hath Common in the land of another for 20 beasts and releases his Common for 10 beasts the Common for the residue remains but if he purchaseth part of the land in which he hath Common the whole Common is destroyed A Feoffment to two with warranty and one of them releases the warranty all the warranty is gone As to the condition for as much as it is not collateral but incident to the reversion it may be severed and is of the same nature as the rent and reversion A man possessed of lands for 20 years and seized of other lands in Fee Conditions divided leaseth all the land for 10 years reserving rent with clause of re-entry and dieth now the Heir hath a reversion for the land in fee and the executor for the other land so the condition is divided according to the reversion so if lands were given to one in general tail and others in special tail he thereof makes a lease rendring rent and dieth having several Issues inheritable to each tail now the condition shall go according to the rent and he conceived that the Grantee of parcel of the reversion is an Assignee within the said Statute Grantee of parcel of the Reversion is an Assignee within 32 H. 8. Of Conditions as if a Lease for years
that Reversion shall descend to all the daughters notwithstanding the half blood for the Estate for years which is made by Indenture by license of the Lord is a demise and a Lease according to the order of the Common Law and according to the nature of the demise the Possession shall be adjudged which possession cannot be said possession of the Copyholder for his possession is customary and the other is meer contrary therefore the possession of the one shall not be the possession of the other therefore there shall be no Possessio Fratris in this case Possesso Fratris But if one had been the Guardian by custom or the Lease had been made by Surrender there the Sister of the half blood should not inherit And Mead said the Case of the Guardian had been adjudged Mounson agreed And it was said that if a Copyhold doth descend to the Son he is not a Copyholder before admittance but he may take the profits and punish a Trespass before admittance CIV Pasc 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Parson let his Rectory for three years and covenanted that the Lessee shall have and enjoy it during the said term without expulsion or any thing done or to be done by the Lessor and is also bound in an Obligation to the Lessee to perform the said Covenant Forfeiture Quaere Afterwards for not reading of the Articles he was deprived ipso facto by the Statute of 13 Eliz. The Patron presented another who being inducted ousted the Lessee wherefore an Action was brought upon the Obligation It was the Opinion of all the Iustices That this matter is not any cause of Action for the Lessee was not ousted by any Act done by the Lessor but rather for Non feasans and so out of the compass of the Covenant aforesaid as if a man be bound that he shall not do any waste permissive waste is not within the danger of it Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CV King and Cottons Case IN Ejectione firmae the Case was Lessee for years the Remainder for life the Remainder in Tail to Lessee for years Lessee for years made a Feoffment in Fee with warranty and dyed he in the Remainder for life dyed the Issue in Tail entred and made a Lease to the Plaintiff It was clearly resolved by the Court in this Case Entre Congeable That the entry of the Issue in Tail was lawful notwithstanding that the disseisin was done to another Estate than that which was to be bound by the warranty scil to the Estate for life Vide 50 E. 3. 12 13 46 E. 3. 6. Fitz. Garr 28. Pasc 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CVI. Scot and Scots Case BArtholomew Scot brought a Writ of Accompt against Thomas Scot Accompt Thomas Scot sum ' fuit ad respondend Barth Scot quod reddat ei rationabilem computum suum de tempore quo fuit receptor denariorum c. And declared quod cum the said Thomas Scot fuit receptor denariorum c. recepisset so much by the hands of such a one c. Cumque idem Thomas habuisset recepiâ—â—et diversa bona and shewed what ad merchandizand c. Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Writ and Declaration is general against the Defendant as Receiver whereas for such goods as the Defendant had received ad merchandizand he ought to have been charged as Bayliff Quod Curia concessit Vide Book Entries 19. 46 E. 3. 9. and afterwards the Defendant traversed severally both the Charges whereupon several Issues were joyned and both found for the Plaintiff And as to the monies with the Receipt of which he was charged as Receiver the Plaintiff had Iudgment and as to the others Abatement of Writ which he received ad Merchandizandum the Writ abated And it was said by the Court That the Writ should have abated in the whole unless the several Issues had helped the matter because the Plaintiff might have had an Action for part in other manner Vide 9 H. 7. 4. by Brian 17 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CVII Morgan and Coxes Case MOrgan exhibited a Bill of Perjury in the Star-Chamber against one Cox setting forth that whereas he was bound to his good behaviour by Recognizance acknowledged in the Kings bench and he in discharge of the said Recognizance had obtained a Writ De Fama gestu to enquire of his Conversation and therefore at the Sessions in the County of Devon where the said Morgan was dwelling the grand Iury charged with the said Matter the said Cox gave Evidence to the said grand Iury in maintenance and continuance of the said Recognizance and upon the Evidence given by Cox the said Bill was conceived It was moved by the Counsel of the Defendant That that Bill upon the matter did not lye for that the Evidence in the Bill for the Perjury was given for the Queen in maintenance of the Recognizance and that to the grand Iury which was charged for the Queen But as to that it was said by the Lord Chancellor and both the Chief Iustices that the Writ De fama gestu Brief de Fama gestu is an especial Writ at the Suit of the Party and not of the Queen and the Court cannot deny it to him who asketh it and the grand Iury as to that matter shall be accounted a special Iury c. Mich. 16 Eliz In the Common Pleas. CVIII Jackson and Darcys Case Tail barred by a Fine 3 Leon. 57. IN a Writ of Partition betwixt Jackson and Darcy the Case was Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levied a Fine had Issue and dyed it was adjudged that the Issue was barred and yet the Remainder to the Queen was not discontinued for by the Fine an Estate in Fee-simple determinable upon the Estate in Tail passed to the Conusee Trin. 17 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CIX Stroads Case Tenures IN a Replevin the Case was Lands holden of a Subject came to the possession of the King by the Statute of 1 E. 6. of Chauntries The King granted the Lands over unto another it was holden in this Case that the Patentee should hold of the King according to his Patent and not of the ancient Lord but the Patentee should pay the rent by which the said Land was before holden as a Rent-seck distrainable of Common right to the Lord and his Heirs of whom the Land was before holden CX Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in Fee devised them to his Wife for life and after her decease Estate she to give the same to whom she will He had Issue two daughters and died Devises Leon. 121â— the wife granted the Reversion to a Stranger and committed waste and the two daughters brought an Action of waste In this Case it was holden that by that Devise the wife had but an Estate for life but she had also an authority
is not punishable by the Law of the Land no more than if many conspire to indict one but do not put it in Execution it is not punishable but if A. saith that B. lyeth in wait to kill him or rob him there an Action lyeth for insidiatores viarum are punishable But the Opinion of the whole Court was that because these words sound in great discredit of the Plaintiff it is reason he have his Action and so Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXL The Lord Stafford and Sir Rowland Heywoods Case THe Lord Stafford brought an Action upon the Case against Sir Rowland Heywood Kt. Abatement of Writ Exception was taken to the original Writ viz. ad respondend c. Quare colloquium quoddam habebatur inter Dominum Stafford Row. Heywood de assurando Castrum to the said Lord Stafford by the said Sir Rowland c. Dictus Rowlandus Castrum illud non assuravit c. where the said Writ said cum colloquium quoddam habebatur for the cause of the Action is not colloquium habitum but the not assurance of the Castle according to the promise made super colloquium praedictum and for that cause the Writ was abated CXLI Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte by the Court If one who is not a common Informer be barred in any Information or Action upon a penal Statute he shall pay costs notwithstanding the Preamble of the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. be for the redressing of divers Disorders in common Informers but if pars gravata be barred in such case he shall not pay costs Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXLII Robinsons Case GEorge Robinson Lessee for years of the Manor of Drayton Basset the Reversion to the King devised his term to his wife as long as she should keep her self a Widow with the Remainder over if she married or died and made his Wife and his Son William his Executors the said William being within age and therefore the administration was committed to the Wife alone and she only proved the Will and afterwards the Wife granted all her Interest to the said William and dyed And by Cook nothing passed by this Grant for William had the same before for every Executor hath the whole Interest Popham contrary for at the time of the Grant the Son was within age and had not administred nor proved the Will therefore in effect the wife was sole Executrix and by Egerton Solicitor if during the said Executorship by the wife one doth trespass upon the Lands the wife only shall have the Action of Trespass without naming her Co-Executor which Cook denied and he cited the Case 10 H. 7. 4 where two Executors are and the one only is possessed of goods of the Testator and a Stranger takes them our of his Possession to whom the other Executor releaseth and after the Executor out of whose possession the goods were taken brings an Action of Trespass against the Trespasser who pleads the Release of the other Executor and it was holden a good Plea for the possession of the Plaintiff was also the possession of his Companion The Case was further that Thomas Robinson in pleading shewing that G. Robinson was possessed and the same devised to his wife who granted to William Robinson who devised it to the Defendant And the other side shewed that the said Thomas granted the said term to Paramour and upon that grant they were at Issue if now against his own pleading Thomas might give in evidence that Thomas could not grant for that he had not any thing to grant for if the gift made by the wife to William was void and he had the term as Executor then he could not devise it but his devise to Thomas was void and then Thomas could not grant it and so Ne grant pas It was also shewed that the said Thomas granted the same to Paramour by Indenture if now against that Indenture he might give in evidence such special matter ut supra and if the Party shall be concluded if the Iury shall be concluded to give the Verdict Secundum veritatem facti for they are sworn to say the truth and by Popham and Egerton as well the Iurors as the Parties are bound and concluded by the confession of the Parties on the Record and here all confess that William devised to him virtute cujus he was possessed The Queens Attorney to that said That true it is that Thomas Robinson was possessed but further said that the said Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides Therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary And by Manwood Chief Baron if the Parties admit a thing by not gainsaying it Jurors where bound by confession of the parties where not the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed the Iury shall be bound thereby And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLIII Applethwait and Nertleys Case IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that the Defendant promised in consideration that the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant would marry his Daughter to give to the Plaintiff 40 l. and said he had married his Daughter and yet the Defendant Licet saepius requisitus would not pay it It was moved by Cook in stay of Iudgment that the Declaration is vitious because there is not set forth the place and time when the request was made for the Assumpsit being general it is by Law to be paid upon request Fenner If the promise was expresly to be paid upon request the Declaration was not good And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Hil. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLIV Wats and Kings Case SAmuel Wats Plaintiff in Ejectione firmae against W. King upon a Special Verdict it was found that W. Wallshot was seized in Fee and he with one Oliver Shuttleworth Octab. Mich. 3 4 Phil. Mary levied a Fine Sur Conusans de droit c. to John Hooper who granted and rendred by the same Fine to Oliver for a month the remainder to the said W. Wallshot and to one Anne Cook and the heirs of their bodies c. the remainder to the right heirs of the said W. Wallshot in Fee and that with Proclamation William and Anne intermarry have issue John now alive W. Wallshot 4 5 Phil. Mary levy a Fine with Proclamation to Edward Popham Esq to the use of the said Edward and his heirs W. Wallshot 18 Eliz. died Anne took to husband Richard Stephens and they in the right of the said Anne entred and by Indenture demised the said Land to Richard Hoose the Father Richard the Son and Mary his wife for the term of their lives rendring to the said Richard Stephens and Anne his wife and to the heirs of the body
of the said Anne and of the right heirs of the same W. Wallshot Anne died and if this Lease should bind the Conusee was the question for it was agreed by all that the Issue in Tail was bound by the Fine Quaere the Case was only put but not resolved CXLV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon a recovery in a writ of Entry sur disseisin of two Acres of Lands an Habere facias seisinam was awarded the Sheriff as to one Acre returned Habere feci and as to the other tarde And that return was shewed to the Court Amercement of the Sheriff and all the Iustices but Periam held that the Sheriff should be amerced for that return being contrary repugnant in it self but Periam said it may be that the Acre of which no seisin is had was so distant from the other Acre whereof the seisin was had that the Sheriff in time could not make execution of both being so remote the one from the other To which it was answered That if the truth of the case was such Then might the Sheriff make Execution in one Acre in the name of both Acres And if upon a Capias ad satisfaciend against two the Sheriff retorn as to one a Cepi and as to the other Tarde he shall be amerced for his several retorns cannot stand together Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXLVI Lees and Lord Staffords Case COmpton made Conusans as Bayliff to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed that Henry Lord Stafford Father of the said Edward and Ursula his Wife were seized of the place where and let the same for years to Edward Lees the Plaintiff Robert Lees and Elizabeth Atwood upon Condition they nor any of them should alien the said Term nor any part of the same without the leave of the Lord or his Heirs Henry Lord Stafford and Ursula died and that the Reversion thereof descended to Edward Lord Stafford and shewed further that the said Edward Lees the Plaintiff had aliened To which the Plaintiff in bar of the Conusans said that the said Edward now Lord Stafford gave License that the said Edward Lees Robert or Elizabeth might alien and that was without Deed. It was conceived by some that this Licence was not of any force to dispense with the Condition because it is uncertain and doubtful in the disjunctive and it was resembled to the Case of 11 H. 7. 13. where a man gives a thing to J. S. or A. B. it is void for the incertainty But all the Court was to the contrary For here the thing which is given is but a Liberty and is not to be resembled to a Gift or Interest and the intent of the Lord Stafford was that one of them might alien but not all of them and afterward Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVII Limver and Evories Case LImver as Administrator of one A. brought Debt against Evory and the case was F. made G. his Executor and G. made H. an Infant his Executor and died and during the minority Administration was granted to the Plaintiff who as Administrator of G brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond made to the first Testator and that was assigned for Error for the Plaintiff ought to bring his Action as Administrator of the first Testator vide 10 E. 4. 1. 26 H. 8. 7. and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXLVIII Knevit and Copes Case KKnevit brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared 3 Leon. 266. whereas John Hopkins by his Deed bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him a House and two yard Lands containing forty Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture at Tithingham de forecomb in the Parish of Steep c. and upon Not Guilty the Visne was of Tithingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook that the Declaration had not certainty for it is not shewed certain how much Meadow Land and how much Pasture is contained in the said two yard Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant Guilty as to so much Land but not to the residue also he hath not shewed in the Declaration when the Lease was made but only saith that by Indenture bearing date 20 May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then is the demise To which Exception it was said by the Iustices That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to be delivered at the day of the date Another Exception was taken to the Visne because that the Visne ought to have been from the Parish and not from Tithingham 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Manor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be from the Manor of B. but of B. Gawdy You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is well of Tithingham for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Vill conus from which a Visne cannot come CXLIX Trin. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Rot. 1027. MIlbourn brought an Action upon the Statute of Winchester against the Inhabitants within the Hundred of Dunmow in the County of Essex it was found by Special Verdict that the Plaintiff was robbed 23 Aprilis inter horam secundam matutinam tempore nocturno ante Lucem ejusdem diei and the Opinion of the Court was clear that the Plaintiff should be barred for the said Statute provided for ordinary Travel as in the Case of Archpool who came to his Inn post Sunset ante noctem in tempore diurno which is an usual time for travelling to come to his Inn but the Law doth not receive any in protection of this Stat. who travel in extraordinary hours for it is the folly of the Traveller to take his journy so out of season and the Inhabitants are not bound to leave their Houses and to attend the ways tempore nocturno and another reason was alledged by the Iustices because the said Statute appoints watch to be kept in the time of night à Festo Ascensionis usque ad Festum Sancti Michaelis and this Robbery was done the 23 of April so as it was out of that time and afterwards Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CL. Barkers Case Estrepement in Partition A Writ of Partition by Barker heir of Gertrude Marquess of Exceter who devised all her Lands to Blunt by which the third part was descended to the Plaintiff and he prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ ought not to be granted for that the Plaintiff might have a more proper remedy upon the Statute cum duo tres c. and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLI Megot and Davies Case
Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
Marchioness had devised all her Lands and had not left any thing to her Heir for which Case the Heir of the Marchioness entred into the third part of the Manor of Cauford of which the Lease upon which the Ejectione firmae was brought was made by the Lord Mountjoy to Insley and into the third part of the residue of the whole land now his meaning was That if the rent was not well passed by the name of the Manor then the same descended to the Heir which was sufficient for him For the Special Verdict found also That the rent was the third part of the value of the whole Land of the Marquess So that thereupon it may be collected That if a man hath three Manors some of them holden in Capite and of equal value and he deviseth two of them and suffereth the third to descend that the Devise is good for every part of the two Manors and the Heir shall not have the third part of each Manor Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXIII Spring and Lawsons Case ONe recovered in an Ejectione firmae and afterwards the Defendant made a new Lease for years and he who recovered ousted him and he brought an Ejectione firmae and the other pleaded the former Recovery It was holden a good bar by all the Iustices but Windham and Periam and by them the same is no Estoppel for the Conclusion shall be Iudgment if Action and not Iudgment if he shall be answered And although that it be an Action personal and in the nature of a Trespass yet the Iudgment is quod habeat possessionem termini sui during which Term the Iudgment is in force it is not reason that he should be ousted by him against whom he recovered for so Suits should be infinite and by Rhodes an Entry pendent the Writ shall abate it CLXIV Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action of Covenant was brought against one who had been his Apprentice The Defendant pleaded that he was within age The Plaintiff maintained his Action by the Custom of London where one by Covenant may bind himself within age Exception was taken to it that that was a Departure For 18 R. 2. an Infant brought an Action against his Guardian in Socage who pleaded that the Plaintiff was within age The Plaintiff did maintain his Declaration That by the Custom of such a place an Infant of 18 years might bring accompt against his Guardian in Soccage and it was there holden to be no departure Wray Chief Iustice was of Opinion that it was no departure for he said It should be frivolous to shew the whole matter in his Declaration viz. That he was an Infant and that by the Custom he might make a Covenant which should bind him But Quaere of the Matter and of his Opinion for that many learned Lawyers doubted much of it And vide the Case in 19 R. 2. of the Guardian in Soccage Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXV Savage and Knights Case ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfeild assigned Error because in that Suit there was not any Plaint for in all Inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without it no Process can Issue forth and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant Summonitus fuit c. and because the first entry ought to be A. B. Queritur versus C. Clench a Plaint ought to be before any Process issueth and the Summons which is entred here is not a Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed It was said That after the Defendant appeared a Plaint was entred But it was answered That that did not help the matter for there ought to be a Plaint out of which Process shall issue as in the Soveraign Courts out of the Original Writs 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVI Grindal Bishop of Yorks Case GRindal Archbishop of York made a Lease for one and twenty years another Lease for years of the same Land being in being not expired by four years and dyed and in time of vacation the Dean and Chapter confirmed it Clench It is a good confirmation A Bishop makes a Lease for years reserving the ancient rent but where it was payable at four Feasts of the year it is now reserved payable once in the year the same is within the Letter of the Statute but not within the intent the same Law if the Rent before was usually reserved to be paid upon the Land now it is reserved to be paid at any far remote place And he said that although his lease was in possession yet not to take effect before the four years of the former Lease are expired cannot be said an Estate within the Statute of 1 Eliz. whereby any Estate may pass before the commencement of it for he to whom it was made had but a right to have the Land and he could not surrender And he held that the second Lessee should pay the rent as well by the Contract as by the Estoppel Periam At the Common Law a Bishop with the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter might have made a Feoffment Gift in Tail and a Lease for any Term of years and he spake much What shall be said the Possessions of a Bishop And therefore if a Bishop disseiseth another of certain Lands and makes a Lease thereof under the Seal of his Bishoprick it shall be now his Seal and it shall be his election in what capacity he will take and then this Land is to be reputed parcel of the Possession of his Bishoprick Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVII Hoo and Hoes Case JOhn Hoo brought a Writ of Intrusion against Richard Hoo depending which Writ the Demandant prayed Estrepement and had it and declared upon it scil That the Tenant after the Prohibition fecit Vastum Estrepementum in prosternendo c. To which the Tenant pleaded Not Guilty But the Plea was not allowed by the Court for there is no Issue in this Case but he might to plead Quod non fecit vastum c. after the Prohibition 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVIII Clinton and Bridges Case DEbt The Condition was for performance of an Award which was to pay 10 l. to the Plaintiff and to do divers other things The Defendant pleaded Quod perimplevit Arbitrium and shewed how the Plaintiff assigned for a Breach that the Defendant had not paid the 10 l. The Defendant rejoyned that he rendred it to the Plaintiff and he refused it It was the Opinion of Dyer that the same is a Departure for in the Bar the Defendant pleads that he hath performed the Award and shews how and now in the Rejoynder a Tender and Refusal which is not a performance of the Award although it is not any Breach of it 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CLXIX The Bishop of L's Case Tenures THe Case of the Bishop of
or his Servant had put the Horse to grass and afterward the Horse is stollen there an Action upon the Case doth lye Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVII Neals Case IN a false Imprisonment by Neal against the Mayor Sheriffs Citizens and Commonalty of the City of Norwich the Original Writ was directed to the Coroners of the said City And Exception was taken to the Writ because it was not directed to the Sheriffs of the said City but to the Coroners Sed non allocatur for the Sheriffs are parcel of the Corporation as it is to see by the name by which they of Norwich are incorporated And also it hath been adjudged That a Sheriff cannot summon himself and therefore by the Award of the Court the Writ was allowed to be good Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXCVIII. Sir John Bromes Case SIr John Brome 33 H. 8. acknowledged a Fine of certain Lands the Kings Silver was entred and the Conusans taken but the Fine was never engrossed and now he who claimed under the Fine came in Court and prayed that the Fine might be engrossed and the Court examined them upon their Oaths to what use the Fine was levied and in the Seisin and Possession of what persons the Lands whereof the Fine was levied had been after the Fine Vpon which Examination it appeared fully to the Court that the Party to whom the Fine was levied was seized after the Fine and suffered a Common Recovery of the Land and that the said Land had been enjoyed according to the said Fine at all such times since c. Whereupon the Court commanded that the Fine be ingrossed Vide Acc. 8 Eliz. Dyer 254. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CXCIX The Lord Dacres and Philip Fines Case THe Case between the Lord Dacres and Fines was Tenant in Tail in remainder upon an Estate for Life of Lands holden in Capite levied a Fine thereof without Licence 3 Leon. 261. and Process issued against the Tenants for Life It was holden by all the Barons that by Plea he should be discharged it was holden That if the Conusor had any other Lands ubicunque in Anglia the Fine for Alienation should be levied upon them But it was moved If the Tenant should be driven to plead it because it appears upon Record that the Conusor was but Tenant in Tail in Remainder and that was in an Office containing such matter which was pleaded by another in another Cause before by which Office it appeared that the Lord Dacres was Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail to Philip Fines and now Fines had levied a Fine sur Conusans de droit c. and because the same appeared on Record Manwood awarded that the Process against the Tenants of the Lord Dacres should be stayed Trin. 29 Eliz. CC. Paston and Townsends Case IN Trespass by Paston against Townsend The Defendant pleaded that Tindal was seized in Fee by protestation and dyed seized and the Land descended To which the Plaintiff replyed and said c absque hoc that Tindal was seized in Fee upon which they were at Issue On the part of the Defendant to prove the Issue it was given in Evidence to prove the Issue in his right that the said Tindal long time before his death was seized and aliened and never after was seized It was said that that Evidence did not prove the Issue for the Defendant for the Seisin in Fee intended in the Issue is in the nature of a dying seized and so Periam conceived that the Defendants Plea did not intend any other Seisin a dying seized and the dying seized is taken by Protestation to avoid the doubleness So as the Seisin upon which the Issue is taken ought to be intended a Seisin continuing until the time of the death of Tindal and Seisin at large or a general Seisin at any time during the life of Tindal quod Anderson concessit Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCI. Griffith and Prices Case ERror by Griffith against Price upon a Iudgment in Chester in Ejectione firmae and the Error assigned was because the Original bore date 16 April 28 Eliz. and the Plaintiff declared of an Ejectment 17 April 28 Eliz. So as it appeareth that the Action was brought before there was any cause of Action and that was holden to be Error And also Ejectione firmae is not a personal Action and afterwards the Iudgment was Reversed Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCII. Harris and Caverleys Case A Iudgment was given in London between Harris and Caverley upon the Statute of 5 E. 6. for buying of Woolls and upon that Error was brought in the Kings Bench quod nota For this Writ of Error upon a Iudgment given in London ought to be sued before the Maior Vide â— N. B. 22 23. And Wray asked Wherefore the Writ of Error was brought here To which it was answered by Dodding Clark that the Record was removed by Certiorari out of the Kings Bench at the Suit of the Defendant to the purpose to bring a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet And the Error was assigned in this that by the Statute of 18 Eliz. cap. 5. it is enacted that upon every Information that shall be exhibited a special Note shall be made of the Day Month and Year of the exhibiting of the same into any Office or to any Officer who lawfully may receive the same And here upon this Information there is not any such Note according to the said Statute And in truth no Information may be exhibited for there is not any Officer there appointed for that matter for the entry in such Cases in that Court is Talis venit deliberavit hic in Curia Miloni Sands c. But in the Case at Bar the Entry is Talis venit deliberavit in Curia but without shewing to whom But note that the words of the said Statute of 18 Eliz. are in the disjunctive into any Office or to any Officer and that such Information shall not be of Record but from that time forwards and not before wherefore here this Information is not upon Record and then no Iudgment can be given upon it Cook This Information may be well sued in London for the words of the said Statute of 5 E. 6. give Suit in any Court of Record of the King And the Court in London is a Court of Record of the King and every Court of Record hath an Officer to receive Declarations and Pleas and if it be delivered into the Office it is good enough 2. The Offence is laid in the Parish of Bow in Warda de Cheap alibi in Civitate London and so there is not any place laid where the Offence shall be tryed Cook This Alibi is a Nugation Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCIII Peuson and Higbeds Case IN Assumpsit the Plaintiff declared that in consideration that he by his Servant had delivered to the Defendant two Bills
of Debt amounting to the sum of 80 l. Solubiles eidem querenti to be received by the Defendant at Roan in Normandy to his own use the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 60 l. and upon this matter Iudgment was given and now a Writ of Error was brought and assigned for Error because it is not shewed in the Declaration that the Bills were sealed or that they were made to the Plaintiff and here is not any consideration for the Defendant hath not any remedy to compel the Parties to pay the said debts if they refuse Godfrey If the mony be not paid at Roan to the Defendant he shall have an Action upon the Case for this is an Assumpsit in Law which Wray concessit for it is a mutual promise and agreement And it was argued to the contrary that here is not any sufficient consideration for it doth not appear that the Defendant hath any remedy for to recover the mony And 13 Eliz. it was holden that where the Plaintiff declared in an Action upon the Case that in consideration that he had delivered a Bill of Debt to the Defendant and hath made a Letter of Attorney upon it c. the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff 20 l. and because that the Plaintiff notwithstanding that might release the debt or revoke the Letter of Attorney and so defeat the Defendant of the whole profit c. that the Action upon the matter did not lye Also for another cause the consideration is not sufficient for it is illegal because maintenance but if it was upon the consideration precedent it had been good enough As if J be indebted to A. and B. is indebted to me J. may assign to A. the debt which B. oweth me Golding Although the consideration be but of small value yet it is good enough And if A. in consideration B will assure to him the Manor of D. promise to pay to B. 100 l. although the Party hath not any interest or title to it yet it is good and also though the consideration be Executory yet it is valuable for if the mony be not paid at Roan the Defendant shall have an Action upon the Case against the Plaintiff It was also objected that upon the Declaration it doth not appear that the Defend if the two Bills be not paid may have an Action upon the Case against the Plaintiff for there is not any express Assumpsit on the Plaintiffs part that the monies due by the Bills to the Plaintiff shall be paid to the Defendant for if it had been so then it had been good for then there had been a reciprocal promise which is not here nor can be collected by any words in the Declaration Cook It doth not appear upon the Declaration by whom nor to whom the mony due by the two Bills shall be paid for it may be that they are due to the Defendant and then the delivery of the two Bills is not any consideration Quod Clench Gawdy concesserunt The Case was adjourned CCIV. Temps Roign Eliz. THe Case was A. enfeoffed B upon Condition that if he pay ten pound to the Feoffee his Executors and Assigns within three years next ensuing that then c. The Feoffee hath Issue three Sons whom he makes his Executors and dyeth before the day of payment The Ordinary commits Letters of Administration to J. S. during the minority of the Executors It was the Opinion of Dyer that it was the surest way for A. to pay the monies to the Executors no withstanding the administration committed to another for the Administrator in such Case is but a Bailiff or Receiver to the Executors and shall be accountable to them which Harper concessit And Manwood said That if in that Case the monies be paid to one of the Executors it is sufficient and the monies to be paid upon that conditional Feoffment are as a sum in gross and not in the nature of a Debt quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCV Temps Roign Eliz. A Lease is made of certain Lands for years Proviso that the Lessee shall not put his Cattel upon the Land from Michaelmass to St. Andrews Tide the Question was If this Proviso and Restraint shall reach for the whole Term or but to the first year Dyer Conditions are stricti juris and ought not to have liberal constructions therefore he conceived that the condition should be restrained to the first year and should not further extend Manwood If I be bound that I will not go to London between Easter and Michaelmas it shall not extend only to the first year after the date of the Obligation but for my whole life Hil. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCVI. Doughty and Prideaux Case ACtion upon the Case by Doughty against Prideaux upon these words Thou art a wicked and perjured Fellow 3 Leon. 269. and art forsworn in the Court of Star-Chamber as it appeareth by an Exemplification here under the Seal of that Court The Defendant justified by reason of a Bill exhibited in the said Court by one Brooks against the now Plaintiff for conspiring with another to endite the said Brook of certain Felonies and the Defendant now Plaintiff in his answer to his said Bill denied upon Oath the said Conspiracy and Sentence was given in the said Court against the now Plaintiff ubi revera such Conspiracy was The Plaintiff by Replication said That the said Brook was arraigned and endicted upon the said Indictment and prayed his Clergy whereupon it appeared that the said Brook was not legitimo modo acquiet ' and the same can be no Conspiracy in the now Plaintiff to prove the said Brook to be indicted And by Walmesley and Periam the Replication is not good for it may be that Brook was acquitted and yet that the Plaintiff conspired upon which a Writ of Conspiracy perhaps will not lye but an Action upon the Case without doubt for the Replication doth not prove that the Plaintiff did not conspire but that the Plaintiff was not punishable for such Conspiracy CCVII. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Abbot made a Lease to three men for eighty years and in the end of the said Lease there was a clause Proviso That if they dyed within the said Term that then the Lessor might enter The Possessions of the Abby came to the King who granted the Reversion to J. S. who made a new Lease to J. D. for twenty and one years to begin after the Expiration Determination or Surrender of the former Lease The three Lessees dyed within the term If J. D. might enter before J. S. had entred was the Question It was the Opinion of the Iustices that he could not for it is in the Election of J. S. if he will take advantage of the Condition and defeat the Lease but that ought to be by Entry and none can make such Entry but the Lessor himself or by his express direction Trin. 31 Eliz. In
for 21 years to begin at Michaelmas before and in pleading it was shewed That virtute cujus dimissionis posterioris the Plaintiff entred fuit possess crastino Michaelis which was before the making of the Lease and the Plaintiff in his Declaration declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had assigned to him the said Leases had promised to pay to him 630 l. It was found for the Plaintiff Cook For where the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case declares upon two Considerations in such Case although the one be void yet if the other be good and sufficient the Action is maintainable but the Damages shall be given without respect had to the Consideration insufficient and the Plaintiff was to declare upon both Considerations for the Assumpsit upon which the Action is conceived was in consideration that both the Leases were assigned to the Defendant and our Declaration ought to be according to the Assumpsit and it was not material although that one of the Considerations was utterly void Another Exception was taken Because the Lease is set forth to be made 18 October and that by virtue thereof the Plaintiff entred Cro. Mich. Then the Plaintiff entring Cro. Mich. was a Disseisor and then being in by disseisin he could not assign his Interest to another and that appears clearly to the Court upon the whole matter But Cook said That shall not hurt us for it is but matter of surplusage to say Virtute cujus c. As 20 H. 6. 15. the Plaintiff in Trespass supposed by his Declaration that the Trespass for which the Action was brought commenced 10 H. 6. with a Continuando until the day of the Action brought viz. idem 14 Febr. 17 H. 6. where the Writ bore date 12 die Octobris Anno 17 H. 6. And Exception was taken to the Declaration because the continuance of the time was not put in certainty But the Exception was not allowed for it is certain enough before the viz. the day of Writ brought and so the viz is void and all that which follows upon it And so here this Clause Virtute cujus est totum sequitur est omnino void 7 H. 4.44 Br. Action upon the Case 37. The Writ was Quare Toloniam asportavit illud solvere recusavit Exception was taken to the repugnancy for it would not be carried away if it were not paid before yet the Writ was awarded good and the first word Toloniam asportavit holden void So here in the principal Case As to the other Exception it is clear That here is not any Disseisin upon this Entry of the Plaintiff before the making of the said Lease for there was a Communication betwixt the Parties of such a Lease to be made or of such an Assignment and peradventure the Entry was by assent of the other part and then no Disseisin And posito it should be a Disseisin yet the Plaintiff hath assigned all the Interest quod ipse tunc habuit according to the consideration and delivered to the Defendant both the Indentures of Demises and so he hath granted all that which he might grant And if it be a void Assignment or not is not material for quacunque via data the Consideration is good and then the Assumpsit good also Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit three things ought to concur Consideration Promise and breath of Promise and in this Case the Assignment of the Lease to begin after the death of the Lessor is void being but Tenant for life and no Consideration upon the confession of the Plaintiff himself And upon the second Consideration it appeareth the Lessor viz. the Wife who held for life had but a right to the Land demised for she was disseised for he to whom the Land was after let entred before the Lease was made for it doth not appear that he entred by force of any agreement made before the Lease therefore by his Entry he was a Disseisor It was also moved That here was not any sufficient consideration for by a bare or naked delivery Nihil operatur and here is not any word of Give or Grant. To which it was answered That the delivery of the Indenture was not a bare Bailment but a Delivery to the use in the Indenture and so it is pleaded and therefore thereby an Interest passed for such a delivery cannot be countermanded An Indenture with an Averment shall never make an Estoppel Clench Iustice If I deliver any thing to one for his proper use an Interest passeth but if it be to the use of another no Interest passeth The party may have usum but not proprietatem CCLVII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Contract IF a Contract be made betwixt two here in England scil that one of them shall carry certain Goods of the others to Burdeux in France and sell them there and with the mony thereof coming shall buy other Goods for the use of him who was the owner of the first Goods and safely them deliver to him in London If now the party sell them in Burdeux and buyeth others with the monies thereof and brings them into England and there converts them to his own use upon this matter an Action lyeth at the Common Law for the Contract and the Conversion being the cause of the Action was made in England But if the Contract only was in England and the Conversion beyond the Seas the Party at his Election may sue at the Common Law or in the Court of Admiralty And if a Merchant here write to his Factor in France to receive certain Merchandizes which he hath sent to him and to Merchandize with them for his use if the Factor receiveth them and converts them to his own use the Father shall be sued in the Admiralty 25 Eliz. CCLVIII. The Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoyes Case IT was agreed by the two Lord Chief Iustices 1 And. 308. upon conference had with the other Iustices in the Case between the Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoy That where the Lord Mountjoy by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Manor of Camford to Brown in Fee in which Indenture a Clause was Proviso semper and the said Brown covenants and grants cum and with them the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns That the said Lord his Heirs and Assigns might dig for Ore in the Wasts of Camford And also to dig Turf there to make Allom and Copperice without any contradiction of Brown his Heirs and Assigns that now here is a new Grant of an Interest to dig to the said Lord and his Heirs in the Lands aforesaid and not a bare Covenant and it was holden also that the said Lord could not divide the Interest granted to him in form aforesaid viz. To grant to another to dig one part of the said Waste c. But they were of Opinion That Brown his Heirs and Assigns notwithstanding
existen ' ut praefatur ad Warrantiam obligetur aut obligari debeat aut si idem Gilbertus aliquid pro nobis habeat aut dicere scivit quare Breve nostrum de Procedendo praefatae Eliz. in ea parte minime concederetur Qui quidem Gilbertus adtunc ibidem dixit quod praefat ' Tho. Norden non informavit praedict Gilbertum de aliquo per quod praedict Tristriamus in custodia nostra existen ' ullo modo obligetur ad warrantizand ' eidem nihil dixit aut dicere scivit potuit quia praedict Breve de Procedendo eidem Eliz. in ea parte concederetur Nos inde nolentes eidem Eliz. justiciam ulterius differre in hac parte Vobis Mandamus quod si coram vobis in placito praedict taliter sit processum allegat ' tunc in placito illo in redditione Judicii in eodem placito cum ea celeritate quam de jure secundum Legem Consuetudinem hujus Regni nostri Anglioe poteritis procedatis partibus praedict plenam celerem c. dicta allegatione non obstante Teste me ipsa c. Et super hoc eadem Eliz. petit Judicium Seisinam suam versus praedict Thomam Norden de tertia parte Tenementorum praedict cum pertinentiis Super quo visis c. Consideratum est c. Quod praedict Elizabetha recuperet seisinam suam versus praefatum Thomam Norden de tertia parte Tenementor ' praedictor ' Et quod idem Thomas expectet si praedict ' Tristriamus Tenementa praedict unde c. ei warrantizari debeat pro recompensatione valentiae tertiae partis praedict ' versus eundem Tristriamum ratione Warrant ' illius habend ' durant ' minore aetate sua Et donec manus dict' Dominae Reginae à possessione terrae ipsius Tristriami amoveantur Virtute Brevis istius mihi direct ' ultimo die c. habere feci infranominat ' Eliz. plenariam seisinam de tertia parte Messuagii viz. de una Aula parcell ' Messuagij praedict ac de una Camera sive Conclave in Messuagio praedict existent ' necnon de uno Solario ac de una parcell ' ambulatorij vocat ' a Gallery alia parcell ' dict' Messuagii necnon de tertia parte unius Molendini viz. de integro Molendino praedict ' per quemlibet tertium mensem quolibet anno durante vita c. occupand ' gaudend ' c. CCCXXIV Hil. 25 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Traverse IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared upon certain Corn which came to the hands of the Defendant and that he converted it and supposed the coming to be to his hands in London The Defendant said That he was seized of certain Lands in R. in Berks and that the Plaintiff did thereof him disseise and sowed the Lands and before severance he himself re-entred and took away the Corn as was lawful for him to do absque hoc that any Corn came to his hands in London and by the Opinion of the whole Court the Traverse was holden to be good Hil. 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCXXV Wingate and Sands Case EJectione firmae by Wingate against Sands It was moved upon Evidence That a Fine was levied and in one Term three Proclamations were made and before that the fourth Proclamation was made the Term was adjourned so as the fourth Proclamation could not be made the said Term It was agreed by the whole Court That by that adjournment the fourth Proclamation was not executed but should be supplyed the next Term in which the fifth Proclamation was to be made Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber CCCXXVI The Lord Cromwell and Townsends Case HEn Lord Cromwell Exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber against Roger Townsend Esq for that the said Townsend in an Action between James Tavernor Plaintiff and Ja. Cromwell Firmor of the said Lord Cromwell Defendant in Trespass in the favour or unlawful maintenance of the said Tavernor did procure a partial Iury to be retorned And upon the hearing of the Cause the matter given in Evidence was That the said Tavernor was a Copyholder of the said Lord Cromwell and that the said Lord pretending that the said Tavernor had forfeited Copyhold caused the said Ja. Cromwell to make an Entry in the right of the said Lord upon the said Tavernor upon which Entry Tavernor brought an Action of Trespass against the said Ja. Cromwell in which Action the parties were at Issue upon the Forfeiture and before any Venire Facias issued Tavernor hearing that one Steward who was Bayliff of the Liberty under the Earl of Arundel and who ought to have made the Pannel c. was purposed to have made the said Pannel not duly viz to have retorned in the same great Gentlemen of the Country who were Lords of Manors in favour of the said Lord Cromwell That he went to the said Roger Townsend who was then one of the principal Servants and Agents of the said Earl and shewed unto him That if those great Persons and Lords of Manors be returned for the trial of the said Issue peradventure they would not so easily appear for the Expedition of the said Parties as Gentlemen of an Vnder-Condition and also many of them being Lords of Manors and having customary Tenants and therefore not indifferent to try that Issue and prayed his Order to the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel Vpon which said Conference with the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel and shewing unto him that in doing and making of the same there was not convenient nor any equal course to retorn Knights Esquires or Lords but rather such sufficient Persons for the greater Expedition of Iustice and Indifference of Tryal And afterwards the said Tavernor exhibited a Petition shewing all the special matter and prayed him to give order for the making of an indifferent Pannel for the trial of that Cause which Petition was delivered to the Earl by the said Townsend in the name of the said Tavernor upon which the said Earl referred the said Matter and the ordering of the same to three of his chiefest Agents and Counsellors viz. Dicksey Townsend and Chrell and delivered to them the Book of the Freeholdry within the said Liberty who according to their Commission made a Pannel which was retorned and the Iury passed with the said James Cromwell in the right of the said Lord And if that intermedling of Townsend with the Matter ut supra c. especially his conference with the Bayliff be maintenance or not was the Question And by Anderson and Wray it was said for Law That because the said Townsend was in a manner a Servant to the said Earl who had the retorn of the Writs and one of his principal Counsellors and Agents and hearing ex insinuatione of the said Tavernor the misdemeanour of the
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign