Harrison Erringtons case 202p Hebborns case 206p I JEne and Chesters case 151p Jenningâ— Maystâ—â—â— case 102b Jorden Ayliffs case 168b Jenkin and Vivians case 201p K. Kettle and Masons Case 50p King and Berys Case 57p Kellies Case 104p Kirton and Hoxtons case 115p The King and Brigs case 150p Kebles case 18â—b Knights case 187b King Merricks case 2o L Lee and Browns case 128p Lewes and Jeofferies case 153p Lemasons and Dicksons case 189p Laurking and Wylds case 126p Leechford and Saunders case 194b Liverel and Rivets case 206b Lathams case 210b M MIchels case 8b Morgans case 52p Morgan and Tadcastles case 55p Montague and Jeofferies case 108p Mounson and Wests case 110p May and Kets case 129p Middletons case 131p May and Samuels case 134p Mingies case 135p Sir Arthur Mannarings case 145p Morley and Sir Richard Molineuxs case 1â—5p Millen and Fandries case 161p March and Fandries case 161p March and Newmans case 163p Mayor of Maidstons case 180p Mills and Parsons case 199b O OAks and the Lord Sturtonrs case 65b Overton and Sydalls case 120p Old and Estgreens case 160b Owen Wards case 187b P PIgots case 94p Porramor and Veralds case 101p Pollard and Lutterells case 108p Sir John Pools case 128p Powels case 139p Pack and Metholds case 160p Probe and Maynes case 192b Petit and Robinsons case 203p Ployden and Symes case 205p R ROper and Ropers case 106b Robinson Walkers case 127p Rawlinson and Greens case 127p Rones case 133p Richardson and Cabells case 142p Sir George Reynalds case 165p Ryman and Bickleys case 129p Reynor and Hallets case 187p Rochester and Rickhouse case 203p Rosse and Harvies case 206b Risley and Hains case 209p S STocks case 37p Smiths case 53p Southwell and Wards case 91p Sawyer and Hardies case 99p Stainings case 102p Scot and Mainys case 109p Strowd and Wyllis case 114p Southern and Howes case 143p Silvesters case 148p Stone and Withipoles case 152p Sary and Pigots case 166p Sharp and Rasts case 181p Snaggs case 187b Sherry and Richardsons case 15p Smithers case 169b Scheverel Dales case 193p Sanders Meritors case 200p Staple Kings case 206b Savile Wortleys case 207p Sparman Sherwoods case 222p T THompson Traffords case 8p Taunton Raries case 106p Tailours case 133p Thurman Coopers case 188p Talbot and Sir Walters Lacens case 146p Turner and Dennis case 169 V VAughans case 134p W WOod and Downings case 10p Webly and Skinners case 85p Wood and Matthews case 102p Westcot and Cottons case 130p Wrenhams case 135p Wootton and Byes case 136p Wards case 144p Webb and Paternosters case 151p Westermans case 151p Wales case 160p Welden and Bâ—sies case  Wicks case 186b Williams and Vaughans case 186b Willers case 197b Whelhorseys case 208p Woodroof and Vaughans case 210q CASES Reported by S R. JOHN POPHAM Knight Lord chief Justice of ENGLAND In the time of Queen ELIZABETH and written with his own hand in French and now faithfully done into English to which are added some remarkable CASES Reported by other Learned and Judicious Pens since his death Fenner versus Fisher Mich. 34. and 35. Eliz. Reginae in the Kings Bench IN Trespasse brought by Iustice Fenner against Andrew Fisher for a Trespasse done in the Parsonage house of Cravfords in the County of Kent 30. Maij 34. of the Queen the Defendant pleaded that one 〈…〉 was seised of the same Messuage in his Demesne as of see and being so seised the 〈…〉 day of in the same year did demise it to the Defendant for two years from such a Feast then last past by virtue of which he entred and was possessed untill the Plaintiff claiming by colour of a Deed made of the sayd Wrighâ— where nothing passed by the Deed upon which the Defendant entred c. The Plaintiff replies by protestation that the sayd Wrighâ— was not seised as the Defendant hath alledged And for Plea saith that the sayd Wright did not let it to the Defendant as the Defendant hath alledged upon which being at Issue and found for the Plaintif Ackinson moved that Iudgment ought not to be given for the plaintiff because that he hath not made any Title by his Replication for by 9 E. 4. 49. In Trespasse the Defendant pleads in Bar and gives colour to the Plaintiff it is taken for a Rule that the Plaintiff ought to make Title Cook answered that he needs not to make Title in this case but that it sufficeth to traverse the Bar without making a Title and sayd that in 22 E. 4. Fitzh Trespass It is adjudged that in Trespasse the Plaintiff may traverse the Bar without making Title in his Replication and here in as much as it is acknowledged by the Defendant that Wright did demise it to the Plaintiff and that this is a Lease ta will at the least not defeated by his own shewing but by the Lease made to Defendant this being traversed and found against the Defendant The Plaintiff by the acknowledgment of the Defendant himself hath a good Title against him to enter into the Land and by it the Defendant by his Re-entry is become Trespassâ—â— to the Plaintiff and he sayd that in 2 E. 4. fol. In Trespasse where the Defendant pleads that he let the Land to the Plaintiff for another mans life and that he for whose life it was was dead upon which he entred and it is adjudged that it sufficeth for the Plaintiff to maintain that Cestuy vie was yet living without making any other Title And yet these reasons Cleoch and Gawdy held the Replication good to which Popham sayd that we as Iustices ought not to adjudge for the Plaintif where a good formall bar is pleaded as here it is But wherby the Record it self which is before us we cannot see that the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action And therefore I agree that in Trespasse in some cases the Plaintiff may traverse the Bar or part of it without making any other Title then that which is acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the Bar but this alwaies ought to be where a Title is acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the Bar and by another means destroy by the same Bar for there it sufficeth the Plaintiff to traverse that part of the Bar which goeth to the destruction of the Title of the Plaintiff comprised in the Bar without making any other Title but if hee will traverse any other part of the Bar he cannot do it without making an especiall Title to himself in his Replication where by the Bar the first possession appeareth to be in the Defendant because that although the Traverse there be found for the Plaintiff yet notwithstanding by the Record in such a Case the first Possessions will yet appear to be in the Defendant which sufficeth to maintain his Regresse upon the Plaintiff and therefore the Court hath no matter before them in such a Case to adjudge for the Plaintiff unlesse in cases
in themselves do purport And if it had been good for the matter yet it is not good for the form for want of a Traverse for without the Traverse the plea is not answered in that case which is laid to the charge of the Defendant But Popham and Clench held strongly to the contrary and that this Bar is good in matter and as the case is cannot be otherwise and that the form also is good enough and yet the two Affirmatives cannot make a good Issue but in case of two Affirmatives a Traverse shall not be but where the Affiâ—matives do not agree in one As if the Defendant in Trespasse Intitles himself by the Feoffment of a stranger and the Plaintiff reply and maintain that the same stranger did enfeoff him this cannot make a good Issue without a Traverse of the Feoffment alledged to be made to the Defendant But in the same case if the Plaintiff saith that true it is that the stranger enfeoffed the Defend an t but this was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs there no Traverse shall be on the Plaintiffs part because as to the matter of the Feoffment it agrees with the Defendant in which case it shall not take any Traverse but there the Traverse shall come on the Defendants part to maintain the Feoffment to his own use Absque hoc that the Feoffment was to the use of the Plaintiff for now that which the Defendant saith albeit it be in the Affirmative yet it is a Traverse to that which the Plaintiff hath alledged and therfore he needs not traverse the plea And so a diversity where the Affirmative is to traverse that which is alledged by the other party and where not for in one case the conclusion shall be with a Traverse and in the other not Then in this case when the Plaintiff alledged that the Defendant spake these words which prima facie shall be intended to be spoken in this sence as the Plaintiff hath alledged although no Innuendo had been in the case for if it shall not be so intended without the Innuendo the Innuendo will not help it yet when the Defendant hath declared the circumstance wherupon these words were spoken and then the speaking of them therupon now he hath confessed the very words themselves to be spoken but upon the circumstance discovered to be in another sence then prima facie they are to be taken and therfore he shall not take a Traverse for he acknowledgeth the very words but not the intendment which the very Law prima facie presumes upon the words and therfore shall not take a Traverse for this intendment of Law being answered by matter expresly in the plea shall never be traversed as in the case put of a Feoffment prima facie it shal be intended to be to the use of the Feoffee yet when the other party maintains that this Feoffment was to his use he shall not take a Traverse to that which the Law intends and presumes And if a man upon speech had with a Hunter saith That he hath murthered all the Hares within 7. miles of his house and another answer and say he is a Murtherer indeed wherupon the Hunter brings an Action upon the Case against him for saying that the Plaintiff was a murtherer the Action will well lye Yet when the other shall discover the communication wherupon the words were spoken this shall be a good Bar without a Traverse yet if it be true that there were no such communication between the parties as is mentioned in the Bar the Plaintiff then hath good cause of Action and therfâ—re he may well say De injuria sua propria absque tali causa and this being sound it shall be against the Defendant So upon speech of a Butcher who had killed a 1000. Oxen in a year and one hearing it will say that he is a notable Murtherer this upon the matter disclosed is not actionable And it shall be mischievous by a Traverse or by pleading generally not guilty to put such speciall matter in the mouth of Lay-people to give their Verdict upon being ignorant and therfore easie to be miscarried in theâ—r judgment and therfore it shall be the rather admitted by speciall pleading to be put to the judgment of the barred Judges then into the mouths of lay Gents And here when Fletcher speaking of the order to be taken by the Councell upon the Petition said that the Earl would obey their order to which the Defendant answered that he knew not what the Earl would do the said Fletcher said therupon that he was a Subject and what was the intent of Fletcher in saying so no other but that because he was a Subject therfore he ought to obey and if it be so to be understood as of necessity it ought or else they were not spoken by Fletcher to any purpose which cannot be intended then shall the words following being spoken therupon by the Defendant be taken to be spoken in answer to the matter of the Speeches spoken by the said Fletcher and this is that he was sorry and it was his grief that he must be so subject as to be bound therby to obey their Order as if a man saith to another that he was sorry that he was so subject that he must obey a Iudgment against him in the Queens Court this is no cause of Action for this tends but to his subjection to the Law or good order or the like which do not give cause of Action As if one saith of another that he is of the Temple who alwaies rebell against the Governours of the said house then saith another to him Will you then say and maintain that he is a Rebell yes sayes one of the other I will do so If an Action be brought for the last words the Action will lye but if the other discover the circumstances of the Speech in the Bar wherupon it was spoken the Action will not lye And this the Defendant may well do without traversing that which is alledged because he acknowledgeth it although in another sense then the Law Prima Facie imports upon the Declaration And if in Speech between two one of them saith of a stranger that he hath treacherously betrayed his Friend in revealing all his secrets and councell wherupon the other then saith that he hath done as a Traytor therin and the other saith to him again he is a Traytor and he answering to it saith true he is a Traytor Now if the stranger brings an Action of the Case against him for saying of these last words Prima Facie it imports good cause of Action without any Innuendo as that he intended therby that he was a Traytor to the Queen because the words in common intendment have such a sence yet upon the matter disclosed by way of Bar with the circumstances how they were spoken the Plaintiff shall be barred if he cannot maintain that they were spoken without such a cause which
naturall Jones Iustice There is great difference between a way and a water-course as to this purpose for admit that this water-course after that it had been in the Curtilage of the Plaintiff goes further to the Curtilage of another shall not that other have the benefit of this water-course notwithstanding the unity of possession I think cleerly that he shall Doderidge my opinion is that the water-course is not extinguished by the unity of possession But some conceived that he had declared his opinion in terror to the Defendant And afterwards the same Term Barksedale for the Plaintiff said that he had agreed the case before and therfore would now only indeavour to answer some exceptions which had been taken to the Declaration 1. Exception hath been that no prescription or custom is made for this water-course but only that Currere solebat consuevit But I conceive thaâ— the Declaration is good notwithstanding this because the Plaintiff here doth not claim an interest in the Water-course but in the Land in which c. and therfore it is good and this appeareth by 12 E. 4. 9. the Prior of Lantonies case in a prescription in a Market overt generally and the reason there was because he was a stranger as in our case he is and this pleading appeareth also to be good by Cooks Book of Entries 18. Smiths case which was entred 9 Jac. Rot. 366. in this Court 2. Exception was because it is not said that it was Antiqua Rectoria 3. Exception because it doth not appear that he was a spiritual man to whom the Demise of the Rectory was made 4. Because it is not said that the Water-course Ad predict Rectoriam pertinet 5. Because the Water-course is alledged to be for his customary Tenants of the said Rectory and this is not good as appeareth by 21 Eliz. Dyer 363. Prescription Pro quolibet customar Tenente is not good but I conceive that this case is not our case for here is Customarius tenens Rectoriae and there it is agreed that Quilibet customarius tenens Maner had been good And the plea in Bar hath salved these objections and therfore he prayed judgment for the Plaintiff Jeremy for the Defendant And first for the matter in Law it seemed to him that by the unity of possession the Water-course is extinguished and the Water-course may well be compared to the case of the way for as a way is a passage for men over the land so water hath passage upon the land and a way is extinguished by unity as appeareth by 21 E. 3. 2. 11 H. 4 5. 21 Ass and Davies Reports 5. and in 4 Jac. Jordan and case it was the better opinion that a way was extinguished by unity of possession true it is that there Popham chief Iustice put the difference where the way is of necessity and where not for where the way is of necessity there it shall not be extinguished This case hath been compared to the case of a Warren in 35 H. 6. but I conceive that the cases are not a like because a Warren is a meer liberty 8 H. 7. 5. A man may have a Warren in his own Land and Co. lib. 7. Buts case by a Feoffment of Land a Warren doth not passe but this Water-course hath its originall out of the Land and this case cannot be compared to an ancient Water-course running to a Mill for notwithstanding the unity it shall passe with the Mill for otherwise it shall not be Molendinum aquatinum so that the water there is parcell of the thing and so of necessity ought to passe with the thing but here it doth not appear that it is a Water-course of necessity and for any thing that appeareth it may be filled with another Water-course Also I conceive that the Declaration is not good 1. Because neither prescription nor custom is laid for the Watercourse and it appeareth in Co. Book of Entries Holcome and Evans case and the old Book of Entries 616 617. Mich. 1. Car. Rot. 107. Turner and Dennies case in this Court in trespasse for breaking his Close c. the Defendant justified for a way c. and that he was possessed for years and for him and his Occupiers had a way over the Land the Plaintiff demurred and resolved that the prescription is not good 2. The Declaration is insufficient being an action upno the case for the stopping of a Water-course and it is not Vi armis nor Contra pacem Co. lib. 9. 50. the Earl of Shrewsburies case when there are two causes of an action upon the case the one Causa causans the other Causa causata causa causans may be alledged Vi armis for this is not the immediate cause of the action but Causa causata F. N. B. 86. H. and 92. E. in the end of the Writ of action upon the case shall be Contra pacem 3. Also he hath prescribed for the Tenants of the Rectory which is not possible for no Lay-man could be Tenant of a Rectory or of Tithes before the Statute of H. 8. and therfore I pray Iudgment for the Defendant Whitlock chief Iustice conceived that the declaration was good the bar is naught both for the form matter the question here is of Aqua profluens and I conceive that there needs no prescription or custome in this case for water hath its naturall course and as is observed by Brudnell in 12 H. 8. Natura sua descendit it may be called Usu captio or Vsage and he conceived that the action upon the case very well lies in this case like to the case where a man bath a house and windows in it and another erect a new house and stop the light then I may have an action upon the case but true it is that I shall not only count for the losse of the aire but also I ought to prescribe that time out of mind light have entred by these windows c. see 7 E. 3. If there be a School-master in a Town and another erect a new School in the same Town an action upon the case doth not lye against him because Schools are for the publike benefit and every private man may have a School in his house And for the exception that a Lay man cannot be possessed of a Rectory I conceive that the Declaration is good notwithstanding for a Lay-man may have a Rectory by Demise And for the Plea in bar it is not good for the form because that Searles entred and enfeoffed Pigot and it is not said that he entred and Expulit and if a man enter and make a Feoffment the owner being upon the Land the Feoffment is void and therfore an actuall Ouster ought to be shown And for the matter in Law he conceived that the Bar was not good for by the unity of possession the water-course is not extinguished and yet I agree the cases of a way and common upon the differences of Rights which are
was given this day The same Term in the same Court. Goodwin versus Willoughby GOodwin brought an action upon the case against Joane Willoughby wife of Thomas Willoughby and upon non Assumpsit pleaded it being found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. That the Plaintiff shews that Thomas Willoughby was indebted upon account and doth not shew that Joane Willoughby is Executrix or Administratrix and yet that she promised to pay wheras in truth she hath no cause to pay for there is no consideration and so Nudum pactum Jermy for the Plaintiff for the first because it doth not appear for what cause he accounted I answer that this is but a meer conveyance And for the second that she does not suppose that the Feme is executrix c. But here is a good consideration which is that she shall not sue or molest and that he gave day for payment this is a sufficient consideration But Stone of counsell with the Defendant said that the first is the ground of the action and therfore he ought to shew for what he accounted Crew chief Iustice two exceptions have been taken 1. For the alledging the manner of the account which I conceive is good enough and he need not shew the cause of the account And as to the second because it doth not appear that she is Executrix or Administratrix and so no consideration and so no Assumpsit But here she assumes to be Debtor and makes a promise to pay which is an acknowledgment of the Debt by inference and therfore he conceived that the Assumpsit was good Doderidge Iustice for the first it is good enough yet Cum indebitatus existit is no good Assumpsit but here he shows a speciall way of Debt and it would be long and tedious to describe his account For the second there is no cause of action because it doth not appear that she is Executrix or Administratrix or Executrix of her own wrong If I say to one do not trouble me and I will give you so much this is not actionable for there ought to be a lawfull ground and for this cause the Declaration Where forbearance without cause of action is no ground of an Assumpsit is void for it is only to avoid molestation Give me time c. this is no good Assumpsit for forbearance is no ground of action where he hath no cause to have Debt Jones Iustice agreed in the first with them because a generall action upon the case sufficeth and in truth it is but an inducement to the action but for the other part he doubted and he cited one Withypools case an Infant within age promised to pay certain money he makes an Executor and dies within age the Executor saith to him to whom the promise is made forbear and I will pay you and there an action upon the case did lye against the Executor upon this promise and yet it was a void Contract but there was colour of action forbear till such a time now the other hath lost the advantage of his Suit But he gave no opinion Crew It is a violent presumption that he is indebted But by Doderidge here is no colour to charge her but only by inference that she is Executrix If a stranger saith forbear such a Debt of J. S. and I will pay it it is a good consideration for the losse to the Plaintiff and in this case it appears not that there is any cause and Broom Secondary said that Withypools case before cited was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber Jones If an Infant makes a promise it is void and he may plead non Assumpsit which Doderidge did not deny But upon his Obligation he cannot plead Non est factum for he said that he shall be bound by his hands but not by his mouth The same Term in the same Court Drope versus Theyar IN Debt by Drope against Theyar an Inne-keeper upon Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Bolstred moved in Arrest of judgment for the Defendant and the matter was that one Rowly who was servant to Drope lodged in the White Heart at S. Giles and there had certain Goods of his Masters which were stoln from him in the night and Drope the Master brought an action therupon and it was moved by Bolstred that the Plaintiff was without remedy 1. Because it was in an Inne in London for the Register 105. is Quando quis depraedatus euns per patriam which as he said could not be extended to an Inne in London 2. It ought to be an Inne as Inne-keeper 3. He ought to be as a Guest lodging and this appeareth in Culeys case in 5 Jac. in Celly and Clarks case which was entred Pasch 4. Jac. Rot. 254. It was adjudged that where the Guest give his Goods to his Host to deliver to him three daies after and the goods are lost that an action is not maintainable against the Inne-keeper for them and this was in an Inne in Uxbridge And in one Sands case where the Guest came in the morning and his Goods were taken before night he shall have an action against the Inne-keeper 4. The Goods ought to be the Goods of the party who lodgeth there for the words are Ita quod hospitibus damna non eveniunt and here the Master who brought the action was not Guest But admit the Master shall have the action yet he ought to alledge a custom that the Master shall have the action for the Goods taken from his Servant Trin. 17 Jac. Rot. 1535. Bidle and the Master brought an action for Goods taken from the Servant and there it was resolved that he ought to conclude that Pro defectu c. and apply the custom to him being Master Sec Co. Book of Entries 345. And that a custom that for other mens Goods in the custody of Guests the Owner shall have an action against the Inne-keeper if they be stollen Ob. This is the Common Law and therfore ought not to be alledged Answ Where a man takes upon him to shew a custom he ought to shew it precisely he cited Heydons case Co. lib. 3. 28 H. 8. Dyer 38. And it was said for the Plaintiff that Goods are in the possession of the Master which are in the possession of his Servant and so here the Master might have had action well enough 8 E. 4. my Servant makes a Contract or â—â—ies Goods to my use I am liable and it is my act By the Court an Inne in London is an Inne and if a Guest be robbed in such an Inne he shall have remedy as if he were Enns per patriam But the cheife point was whether the master shall have the action in the case where the Servant lost the goods and by Jones Justice in 26 Eliz. in C. B. upon the Statute of Hue and Cry it was resolved that if the Servant be robbed the Master may have the Action and so by him
albeit he died before the day of payment because this was a summ in grosse limited to be paid to the said Thomas at a certain time But if it shall be taken for a Condition in William he thinks cleerly that the said William ought to have given notice to the Executrix of the said Thomas before he had made his first entry into the Land of the Ten. when he intended to make his entry so that the Executrix might be there at the same time to have made demand of the money which ought to have been done or otherwise there cannot be a refusall in the said William and without his refusall or other default in him the Condition cannot be broken if it had such a relation as to make the payment as George ought to do it And so the Executor of Thomas cannot have notice when William will make his first entry into the Land if he do not give him notice of it and therfore if it shall be a Condition it had been broken on the part of William for want of giving notice to the Executor of the time of his first entry wherby the Executor might have notice of the time to make his demand because without a demand refusall cannot be and the Executor is excused to make demand when he had no notice of the time and therfore the default of William in not giving notice of it shall be taken against him as strongly as if he had made a refusall to pay upon demand for if notice had been given to the Executor and he had demanded the money and William had said nothing to it but omitted to pay it yet this shall be a refusall in Law But of this nothing appeareth in the Verdict whether the Executor had notice given to him or not nor nothing mentioned in the Verdict whether any demand or refusall was made of the money or not and therfore the Verdict as to these points is incertain to judge upon whether it shall be taken to be a Condition in William But it seems as the Verdict is that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff for the conclusion of the Verdict is upon the entry of the Defendant whether this be lawfull or not and not upon the expulsion or whether upon the other Moyetie his entry was lawfull in right of the said William because they were Tenants in Common 3. IN Trespasse of Assault Battery and Imprisonment made such a day at in the Countie of Cornwall brought by against The Defendant saith that he was Constable of the same Town and that the Plaintiff the said day year and place brought an Infant not above the age of ten daies in his armes and left him upon the ground to the great disturuance of the people there being and that he commanded the Plaintiff to take up the said Infant and to carry it from them with him which the Plaintiff refused to do for which cause he quietly laid his hands upon the Plaintiff and committed him to the Stocks in the same Town where he continued for such a time untill he agreed to take up the Infant again which is the same Assault Battery and Imprisonment of which the Plaintiff complains upon which the Plaintiff demurred Fennor was of opinion that that which the Constable did was lawfull and that it is hard that an Officer shall be so drawn in question for it for this shall be an utter discouragement to good Officers to execute their Offices as they ought to do Popham A Constable is one of the most ancient Officers in the Realm for the conservation of the Peace and by his Office he is a Conservator of the Peace and if he sees any breaking of the Peace he may take and imprisen him untill he find surety by obligation to keep the Peace And if a man in fury be purposed to kill maime or beat another the Constable seeing it may arrest and imprison him untill his rage be passed for the conservation of the Peace And if a man layes an Infant which cannot help it self upon a Dunghill or openly in the field so that the Beasts or Fouls may destroy it the Constable seeing it may commit the party so doing to Prison for what greater breach of the Peace can there be then to put such an Infant by such means in danger of its life And what diversity is there between this case and the case in question for no body was bound by the Law to take up the Infant but he which brought it thither and by such means the Infant might perish the default therof was in the Plaintiff and therfore the Action will not lye And therupon it was agreed that the Plaintiff take nothing by his Writ Hayes versus Allen. 4. TErm Pasch 33 Eliz. Rot. 1308. A Cui in vita was brought in the Common Pleas by Ralph Hayes against William Allen of a Messuage with the Appurtenances in St. Dunstans in the East London in which it was supposed that the said Wil. had no entry but after the demise which John Bradley late husband to Anne Bradley Aunt of the said Ralph whose heir the said Ral was made to Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen and counts accordingly shews how Cosin and Heir to wit Son of Wil. brother of the said Anne Wil. Allen traverse the Demise made to the said Tho. and Jo. Allen and at Nisi prius it was found that the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife was seised in their demesn as of fee in right of the said Ann of a Messuage in S. Dunstans aforesaid containing from the North to the South 18 foot and from East to West 12 foot and a half and being so seised during their Marriage by their Deed sealed with their Seals enfeoffed the said Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen therof to hold to them and their heirs to the use of the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the Church-wardens of S. Dunstans Lond. and of their successors for ever to the use of the poor of the same place and that Livery was made accordingly and that the said Deed was inrolled in the Chancery at Westm and that afterwards the said Anne died and that Jo. Bradley survived her died and that the right of the said Mess descended to the said Ra. as cosin and heir of the said A. And that Sir W. Allen K. was seised of a peece of land in S. Dunst aforesaid containing 6 foot 4 inches contigious and adjacent to the said Mess late the said Jo. Bradleys and A. his wife in his demesn as of fee And that the said Sir Wil. after the said feoffment and before this Writ purchased utterly drew away the said Messuage late the said John Bradleys and Ann his wife and drected a new house upon the Land of the said Sir William and upon part of the Land upon which the other house stood containing from the North to the South thirteen foot from the East
l. at such a day without saying how or in what manner these Debts accrued or when because the Action is nor meerly founded upon the Debt but upon the promise and the Debts are but inducements to it But if it were to recover the Debts themselves in an Action of Debt there ought to be made a certainty therof to wit when and how it comes And further here in as much as the Assumpsit is found for the Plaintiff it shall be implyed that the consideration was duly performed for without due proof of the consideration the Plaintiff hath failed of his assumption and therfore also it shall be now taken that the Testator hath such a term of years in reversion to which the term for years in possession may be surrendred for he said that he who hath ten years in possession may well surrender to him who hath more years as twenty in reversion for the lesser may surrender to the greater term To all which Popham and Fennor agreed And Popham said further although it shall be taken most strongly against Hughes to wit that Robotham had a lesser term in the reversion then Hughes had in the possession yet the surrender shall be good for in Law it is greater and more beneficiall for him to have a lesser term to be a term in possession then to have it to be in reversion â—â—nd by him if a Lessee for twenty years make a Lease for ten years then he wâ—ich makes the Lease for ten years hath a reversion upon these ten years so that if Rent be reserved upon it he may distrain for it and have Fealty of the Termor And if he grant the Reversion over for ten years with attornment of the Termor in possession the Grantee hath the Reversion and shall have the Rent for the time and yet the Remainder for years remains alwaies to the Grantor and therfore before the Reversion granted ever the Termor for ten years in possession might have surrendred to his Lessor and therby the said Lessor shall have so many of the said years which were then to come of his former term of twenty years And after the Reversion granted he which hath the ten years may surrender to the Grantee of ten years in Reversion and there he shall have so many years in possession which were to come of his Reversion Quod nota bene And if he had had a lesser term in the Reversiâ—n then the Lessâ—r himself had in the Possession it shall go to the benefit of the first Termor for twenty years who was his Grantor for the Term in possession is quite gone and drowned in the Reversion to the benefit of those who have the Râ—version therupon having regard to their Estate in the Reversion and not otherwise to all which Fennor agreed wherupon Gawdy gave the rule that Iudgment shall be entred for the Plaintiff But Popham said that if the consideration for the surrender had not been sufficiently alledged that the Plaintiff shâ—uld not be helped by the other consideration of 100. marks given by Thornel for if such an Assumption as this is be founded upon two more considerations and such which by possibility may be performed then the party hath failed of his Suit As if a man in consideration of 5 s. paid and of other 5 s. to be paid at a day to come assume to do a thing or to pay money if the one 5 s. be not paid or if it be not averred that the other 5 s. was paid at the day limited for the payment of it the party hath failed in his assumption in the one case and the declaration is insufficient in the other case for he hath made a departure from his consideration But if one of the considerations be impossible or against Law there the other considerations which are possible or stand with the Law suffice if they he well alledged And he said that the Executor shall be charged with the contract of the Testator by common course of the Court which stands upon reason for if an Action of Debt upon a bare contract be brought against an Executor if he do not demur upon it but plead to the Paâ—s that he owes him nothing and it is found against him he shall be theâ— by charged of the Goods of the dead and the cause why he may be helped by demurring upon the declaration in that case is becâ—use the Testator might have waged his Law in that case of debt which the Executor could not do of other contracts and therfore shall not be charged with it by such an act if he will help himself by demurrer but in â—he assumption of his Testator he could not have waged his Law and it is founded upon the death of the Testator to wit his debt with which the Executor by a mean may be charged as before and therfore the assumption in such a câ—se maintâ—inable against the Executor But if the Testator upon good consideration assume to make assurance of Land or to do any other such collaterall thing which doth not sound in a duty of a thing payable there the Executor shâ—ll never be charged with such an assumption to render recompence for it And to this agreed all the Iustices â—â— the common Bench and Barons of the Exchequer And such an assuâ—â—â—ion hath not been allowed in the Kings Bench but of late time and thâ—â— but 〈…〉 or two cases But in the other case it hath been common and of 〈…〉 and therfore now too late to be drawn in question and if it should â—â— it may be maintained with good reason in this case of a duty of â—â—ing payable in as much as the Testator cannot wage his Law in the Action but in the other case there is no reason nor course of the Court to maintaiâ— it But the Iudges in the Exchequer Chamber reversed all these Iudments in both cases 2. Nota that this Term was adjourned to Octob. Trin. and because the Writ was that Adjournment shall be made in Octob. Trin. of all cases untill Tres Trinitat the Adjournment was made in every of the Courts of Kings Bench Common Bench and the Exchequer the very first day of Octob. Trin. then it was holden by the Iustices that the Adjournment ought not to have been made untill the sitting of the Court the fourth day from Octabis And because that the Writs were that at the said Tres Tr. the Term shall be holden therafter as if no Adjournment had been the Iustices held that they ought to sit the first day of the said Tres Trin. and so from thence every day untill the end of the Term and for all causes as if no adjournment had been and so they did accordingly saving by assent some of the Iustices did not come thither by reason of their far distance from London at the end of the Term upon the last Adjournment But they held that if it had not been for the especiall words in the Writ which were
such Estates that the Law allows them to be good against the Lords themselves they performing their Customs and Services and therfore are more commonly guided by the guides and rules of the common Law and therfore as appeareth in Dyer Tr. 12. Eliz. Possessio fratris of such an Estate facit sororem esse haeredem And to say that Estates of Copyhold Land are not warranted but by custom and every Custom lies in Vsage and without Vsage a Custom cannot be is true but in the Vsage of the greater the lesser is alwaies implyed As by Vsage three lives have been alwaies granted by Copy of Court Roll but never within memory two or one alone yet the grant of one or two lives only is warranted by this Custom for the use of the greater number warrants the lesser number of lives but not è converso And so Fee-simples upon a Limitation or Estates in tail are warranted by the equity of the Statute because they are lesser Estates then are warranted by the Custom and these lesser are implyed as before in the greater and none will doubt but that in this case the Lord may make a Demise for life the Remainder over in Fee and it is well warranted by the Custom and therfore it seems to them that it is a good Estate tail to John Gravenor and a good Remainder over to Henry his Brother and if so it follows that the Plaintiff hath a good Title to the Land and that Iudgment ought to be given for him And for the dying seised of Elizabeth they did not regard it for she cannot dye seised of it as a Copyholder for she had no right to be Copyholder of it And by the dying seised of a Copyholder at common Law it shall be no prejudice to him who hath right for he may enter But here in as much as she cometh in by admittance of the Lord at the Court her Occupation cannot be fortious to him and therfore no descent at common Law by her dying seised for it was but as an Occupation at Will But if it shall not be an Estate tail in John Gravenor as they conceive strongly it is yet for the other causes alledged by Gawdy and Clench Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff and the Remainder which is not good shall not prejudice the Fee-simple conditionall granted to John which is no more then if the Surrender had been to the use of Iohn Gravenor and his Heirs the Remainder over because that we as Iudges see that this cannot be good by Law and therfore not to be compared to the case where the Custom warrants but one life and the Lord grants two joyntly or successively there both the one and the other is void And this is true because the custom is the cause that it was void and not the Law and also it is a larger Estate then the Custom warrants which is not here and upon this Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff shall recover And by Popham it hath been used and that upon good advice in some Maâ—nors to bar such Estates tails by a common Recovery prosecuted in the Lords Court upon a Plaint in nature of a Writ of Entry in the Post 2. JUlius Cesar Iudge of the Admiralty Court brought an Action upon the Case for a Slander against Philip Curtine a Merchant-stranger for saying that the said Cesar had given a corrupt Sentence And upon not guilty pleaded and 200. marks Damages given it was alledged in arrest of Iudgment where it was tryed by Nisi prius at the Guildhall by a partiall Inquest because that upon the default of strangers one being challenged and tryed out a Tales was awarded De circumstantibus by the Iustice of Nisi prius wheras as was alledged a Tale could not have been granted in this case for the Statute of 35 H. 8 cap. 6. which give the Tales is to be intended but of commontryals of English for the Statute speaks at the beginning but of such Iuries which by the Law eught to have 40 s. of Free-hold and wills that in such cases the Venire facias ought to have this clause Quorum quilibet habeat 40 s. in terris c. which cannot be intended of Aliens which cannot have Free-hold And it goes further that upon default of Iurors the Iustices have authority at the Prayer of the Plaintiff or Defendant to command the Sheriff or other Minister to whom it appertaineth to make a return of such other able persons of the said County then present at the same Assises or Nisi prius which shall make a full Iury c. which cannot be intended of Aliens but of Subjects and therfore shall be of tryals which are onely of English and not of this Inquest which was part of Aliens And further the Tales was awarded only of Aliens as was alledged on the Defendants part but in this point it was a mistake for the Tales was awarded generally de circumstantibus which ought alwaies to be of such as the principall Pannell was But Per Curiam the exceptions were disallowed for albeit the Statute is as hath been said yet when the Statute comes to this clause which gives that a Tales may be granted by the Iustices of Nisi prius and is generally referred to the former part of the Act for it is added Furthermore be it enacted that upon every first Writ of Habeas Corpora or Distringas with a Nisi prius c. the Sheriff c. shall return upon every Juror 5 s. Issues at the least c which is generall of all And then it goes further And wills that in every such Writ oâ— Habeas Corpora or Distringas with a Nisi prius where a full Jury doth not appear before the Justices of Assise or Nisi prius that they have power to command the Sheriff or other Minister to whom it appertains to nominate such other persons as before which is generall in all places where a Nisi prius is granted and therfore this is not excepted neither by the Letter nor intent of the Law And where it is said such persons by it is to be intended such as the first which shall be of Aliens as well as English where the case requires it for expedition was as requisite in cases for or against them as if it were between other persons And Aliens may well be of the County or place where the Nisi prius is to be taken and may be there for although an Alien cannot purchâ—se Land of an Estate of Free-hold within the Realm yet he may have a house for habitation within it for the time that he is there albeit he be no Denison but be to remain there for Merchandise or the like And by Gawdy where the default was only of strangers the Tales might have been awarded only of Aliens as where a thing is to be tryed by Inquest within two Counties and those of the one County appear but not those of the other the
in making pursuit And it is not the form of the pleading to alledge that he pursued him freshly and had him alwaies in his view untill he re-took him but only that he pursued him freshly and took him in this fresh pursuit without saying any thing that he was in his view and therfore his being out of the view of the Sheriff is not materiall in the case but the fresh pursuit and the taking of him in this pursuit Then Coke moved that the Bar was not good because he doth not shew where he made the pursuit so that he might agres to answer that which is alledged by the Plaintiff to wit his being at large at London and therfore the Bar not being good Iudgment shall be given against the Defendant for the insufficiency of his Bar for a Repleader shall not be in case of Demurs as it hath been adjudged here very lately and also in the Common Bench. To which it was answered by the said Iustices That if the Bar be insufficient in matter so that it may appear by it that the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause of Action which in matter is not sufficiently avoided by the Bar Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff upon the Bar if the Replication be sufficient and no Repleader but if the Bar be sufficient for the matter and insufficient for the form only as it is here there before the Statute of Eliz. for pleading there shall be a Repleader but now because no Demurrer was upon the Bar but a Replication made to it therfore by Popham no advantage shall be taken of the Bar for matter of form which is admitted by the party and no advantage taken therof according to the Statute And they all agreed that the Sheriff albeit he did not make fresh pursuit upon the escape may yet take re-take the Prisoner who escaped from him out of Execution for the Prisoner shall not take advantage to avoid the Execution and therfore in respect of the Plaintiff who yet may accept the Prisoner to be in execution the Sheriff may re-take the Prisoner But if the Plai had recovered against the Sheriff before for the escape then the Sheriff for his Indempnity cannot re-take him but is put to his Action upon the Case against the Prisoner for the Sheriff hath no colour in such a case of escape to retake him but in respect and for the advantage of the Plaintiff who had Iudgment against the Prisoner and not in respect of the private wrong done to himself of which he hath no Iudgment and as it is now the Replication not being good by Popham Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff But by assent it was ordered that the Defendant shall put in new Bail and that upon it he shall plead anew But how shall it be if the Sheriff do notmake fresh Suit and re-take him And afterwards he at whose Suit he was in Execution recovered against the Sheriff may the Prisoner have an Audita querela upon the matter Vpon an Assembly of all the Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet with the Barens of the Exchequer it was cleerly agreed by them all but two who at the beginning made some doubt of it but at the end assented also If in the night the house of any be broken with an intent to steal any thing being in the house although no person be in the house at this time yet this is Burglary for the Law is that every one shall be in security in the night as well for their Goods as their persons which be in the house And if a Church be broken in the night for the stealing of any thing in it this is Burglary though no person be in it at this time And so hath the Law alwaies been put in execution and in all the Books which speak of Burglary it is not mentioned that any person ought to be in the house but that it is Burglary the Messuage being â—eckâ—n in the night to the intent to kill any person thâ—â—e or to the intent to steal any thing out of it And the case that of late time it hath been put in the Inditements of Burglary that some person was then there c hath been because that in such cases of Burglary Clergy was taken away but now by the Statute of 18 Eliz. Clergy is taken away in every case of Burglary And the ancient Presidents are Quod domum of such a one Nectanter Felonice burglariter fregit without making mention that any person was then in it or making mention that it was Domus mansionalis of any And it may be a Mansion House albeit no person then inhabit in it And agreed that hereafter it shall be so put in execution by all the Iustices See this more fully hereafter Trin. 36 Eliz. Pl. 1. in this Book AT Tres Paschae this Term there were made for Serjeants at Law viz. Lewkenor Savage and Williams of the Middle-Temple Heale only of the Inner-Temple Kingsmill Warburton Branthwaite and Flemming of Lincolns-Inn and Daniel and Spurling of Grayes-Inn And all the Iustices were assembled in the Middle-Temple Hall the Wednesday past Mâ—nsem Paschae being the second day of May where the two chief Iustices and chief Baron sate upon the Vpper-Bench of the same Hall in their Scarlet Robes with their Collers of S. S. and every one of the other Iustices and Barens in their Ancienty one on the one side and the other on the other side in their Scarlet Robes also and then came the new Serjeants in their black Gowns before the Iustices there the two eldest being put in the midst before the chief Iustice of England and so every one of them one on the one side and the other on the other side according to their Ancienty and every one of the said Serjeants having one of his Servants behind him at his back with his Masters Scarlet Hood and Coife upon his arms And therupon the said chief Iustice made his Speech in this manner IF men will enter into a due consideration upon what grounds the Laws of this Realm have their Original Foundation and what good effects are wrought through the due execution of the same they might say and that justly that the profession therof is both an honest and honourable Profession The Laws are derived partly from the law of God and partly from the Law of Nature From the Law of God in that it ordaineth means how the people may be truly instructed in the knowledge and fear of God How they should demean themselves towards their Soveraign and Prince How they ought to live one with the other and how to be defended from oppressions and injuries From the Law of Nature in that it provideth how each man may defend himself that he may live by his own labours or otherwise according to his profession or calling That he may secure his Posterity of that which he hath gathered together by his industry and that man with man
to Charles late Lord Sturton Father to the said Iohn Lord Sturton and the said Charles Lord Sturton disseised the said Lady Sturton and levied a Fine of the said Land to Cottington and his Heirs with Proclamations according to the Statute and warranted it against him and his Heirs And the said Lord Charles dyed before the Proclamations past and the Warranty descended upon the said John Lord Sturton after which and before the Proclamations past the said Lady Sturton entred upon the said Cottington after which the said Lady died and after her death and all the Proclamations past the said John Lord Sturton as Heir in Tail entred and made the Lease to the said Okes upon whom Cottington the Defendant entred as under the right of the said Cottington the Conusee And I perceiving the Court strongly to incline upon the matter of Warranty that it shall bar the entry of the Heir and make a discontinuance against him according to the inference which is taken by Littleton in his Chapter of Discontinuance because the truth was and so acknowledged to the Court although it were omitted in the Verdict that the said Charles Lord Sturton was attained of Felony and Murther and so the blood corrupted between the said Charles and John Lord Sturton wherby in a new Action the Garranty had not hurt the Title of the said Lord John I then moved the Court upon the other point of the Fine with Proclamations and the Court also agreed in this point if the Warranty had not been that yet the Fine with Proclamations shall bar the said John Lord Sturton notwithstanding the entry made by the Lady Sturton were before the Proclamations past because that notwithstanding his regresse made the Reversion remains in Cottington not defeated by his regresse in respect of the Statute whch makes that the Fine remains effectuall against the Heir in Tail if nothing be done by him to undo it before the Proclamations past as by claim regresse and the like but the Act of a stranger shall not help him wherby Iudgment being therupon given against the said Okes the said John Lord Sturton stood satisfied and the Cottingtons enjoy the Land to this day wheras if this opinion of the Court had not been on a new Action the said Sir John might have been relieved against the Warranty And Gaudy said that this was a very good Case for the point upon the Statute in this case Earl of Shrewsbury versus Sir Thomas Stanhop 8. GIlbert Earl of Shrewsbury brought a Scandalum Magnatum against Gilbert Earle of Shrewsbury against Sir Thomas Stanhop in a Scandalum Magnatum Sir Thomas Stanhop Knight and it was upon the Statute Tam pro Domina Regina quam pro seipso c. For that communication was had between the said Sir Thomas and one Francis Fletcher of divers things touching the said Earl the said Francis at such a day and place said to the said Thomas My Lord the said Earl meaning is a Subject innuendo that the said Earl was a Subject of the now Queen the said Sir Thomas then and there said of the said Earl these slanderous words to wit he intending the said Earl is sorry for that meaning that the said Earl was sorry that he was then a Subject to our said Soveraign Lady the Queen that is his grief meaning that it was grief to the said Earl that the said Earl was Subjâ—ct to the Queen to the damage of the said Earl of 20000 l. To which the said Sir Thomas Stanhop said that a question was formerly moved between the said Earl and the Defendant touching the subversion and drawing away of certain Weares heretofore erected by the said Sir Thomas at Shelâ—ord in the said County of Nott. where the Action was brought to oust the River of Trent there that for the subversion therof a Petition was exhibited to the privy Councell of the Queen before the speaking of the said words by certain Inhabitants of the County of Lincoln and divers other places not known to the Defendant with the privity allowance and knowledge of the said Earl which Petition at the time of the speaking of the said words depended before the said Councell not determined wherupon at the day and place comprised in the Declaration there was Communication between the said Defendant and the said Francis Fletcher concerning their purpose to have the said Wears subverted and touching the said Petition upon which the said Francis said to the said Defendant the matter meaning the Petition aforesaid hanging undetermined before the Councell aforesaid is to be heard before the privy Councel meaning the aforesaid Councell of the Queen and what their Honours meaning the Councell aforesaid determine my Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning will willingly obey To which the said Francis then there answered saying My Lord the aforesaid Earl meaning is a Subject upon which the said Defendant they then having speech as well of the said Petition as of the order therupon to be taken by the said Councell answered saying the words comprised in the Declaration meaning that he was sorry and grieved that he was subject to the order to be made upon the Petition aforesaid by the said Councell and averred that this was the same speech upon which the Action was grounded upon which it was demurred in Law and for cause shewn according to the Statute it was alledged that the bar was defective because it is not alledged at what place nor by whom nor against whom the Petition was exhibited and also because that by the Bar the matter of the Declaration is not confessed avoided or traversed and also that the Bar was insufficient And it seemed to Fennor that the matter of the Bar had been sufficient if it had been well pleaded but the Plaintiff alledgeth the words to be spoken in one sence in the Affirmative and the Defendant shews matter also in the Affirmative which proves the words to be spoken in another sence then the Declaration imporrs and two Affirmatives can never make a good Issue and therfore the Defendant ought to have taken a traverse to that which is comprised in the Declaration and for want of this traverse the plea in Bar is not good Gawdy said that the Bar is not sufficient neither in matter nor form not in matter because that wheras Fletcher said that the said Earl was a Subject this can have no other sence but that he was a Subject to the Queen in his Allegiance and her Soveraignty and so much is drawn out of the course of their former speech and therfore the answer which the Defendant made to it refers to his subjection of alleagiance and not to the matter of obedience which he owed to the order of the said Councell and if it cannot have any other sence in good understanding he cannot help himself now by an Innuendo which is in it selfe according to common intendment contrary to that which the nature of the words
to be given for the Plaintiff Gawdy conceived that it is executed by the intent but not by the letter of the Statute for the purpose was to remove all the Estate from the Feoffee and to put it in Cestay que use wholly to wit in possessions to the Vses which were in Esse and in aleyance as to the Vses which were to come and contingent and now by the same Statute the contingency of the possession shal go in licence of the contingent Vse and now an Vse limited to one for life with Remainder over to the Heirs of the body of I. S. or to the first Son of I. S. shall be in the same manner as if Land at this day had been letten to one for life with Remainder over to the Heirs of the body of I. S. or to the first Son of I. S. and not otherwise for the quality which he had in the Vse the same by the very letter of the Statute he shall now have in the possession and Estate of the Land and the Statute is not to undo any Vse but to transfer an Estate in the Land to the Vse But he said That by the Feoffment made to Christopher the Contingent remainder which was devested in Stretchly and Iohn Chudleigh depending upon the Estate which Sir Iohn Saintleger and his Co-feoffees had for the life of Christopher is utterly gone and destroyed in the same manner as where a Lease is made for life the remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. or to the Heirs of the body of I S. if the Tenant for life dies or aliens wherby he makes a forfeiture and determines his Estate in the life of the said I. S. his Heir shall never have the Land by the remainder afterwards because he was not in Esse as an Heir at the time when the Estate ended for there cannot be a remainder without a particular Estate neither can it stand or be preserved And as in this case without a particular Estate of Free-hold a Remainder cannot be no more in the case now in question being now become by means of the Statute as if it had been an Estate executed in possession and for this cause only he conceived that Judgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff And Clench agreed with this opinion in all and both of them agreed if there be none to take the Vse according to the limitation at the time when it falleth to be in Possessions that he shall never take it although it happen to be in Esse afterwards Clark said that Uses were not at Common Law but grew by sufferance of time as appeareth by the words of the Statute it self and the mischief and subtlety which was before this Statute was not in the Fine Feoffment or other Assurances of Land but by means oâ— the Uses limitted therupon contrary to that which was used in the ancient course oâ— the Common Law and the Statute was made to reduce the Common Law to its ancient force and course and therfore ought to conceive such a construction as may agree with the purpose of the makers of the Statute and therfore the best construction of this Statute is not to execute other manner of Uses but in some cases to extinguish them as where it is such as will make the case in as ill or worse condition then it was before the making of the Statute It hath been agreed by all that the Statute doth not execute any Use which was suspended at the time of the making of the Statute as by reason of a Disseisor or the like hapning before and if it doth not execute the Use which is in suspence for the right which he had in the Use how can it execute the Use which hath not any being for in such cases of Infants not born as here untill they be in Rerum natura the Use cannot have any being And in the same manner in all cases where the Vse is not to rise but upon a future contingent And what good shall this Statute do if these leaping Vses shall arise without being impeached Nothing but alwaies nourish a Viper in the bosom of the Law which is quite against the intent of the makers of the Statute The Law was made to preserve peace amongst the Subjects and to assure their Possessions as many other Statutes did that were made about this time as the Statutes of Fines Wills and others But if the exposition of this Statute shall be as the other side hath taken it it will make the confusion which will happen therupon intollerable and much worse then it was before the Statute was made and as Walsh said if no assurance can be made to be forcible against such a contingent Use this will make it worse then it was before And hesaid that it was not to be compared to the interest of Lands to begin at a time to come nor to the case where a man devise that his Land shal be sold in which case be shall not be impeached by any manner of assurance to be made in the mean time by the Heir and the reason is because the Vendee takes by the Will under the Estate of the Heir and not by the sale and therfore upon the matter he conceived that the Plaintiff ought to be barred Periam said that Uses were at Common Law and to prove it he vouched 24 H. 8. abridged in Brook And he said that there have been alwaies trusts Ergo Uses ab initio but they had not such estimation at the beginning as they have had by continuance of time and so it was of Copyholds And these Uses at Common Law bind but in privity according to the trust but do not bind in the possession of him who cometh to the Land in the Post But now by the Statute all trusts are gone and the Estate of the Land it self transferred to the Use and now the Use guides the Land and not the Land the Use And the Statute did not intend to destroy any Use but to bring it back to the Possession according to the course of the common Law and to avoid the fraud And as before the Statute the Use it self in such a case of Contingency was in obeyance for the time so now the Estate it self is in obeyance by the Statute which wills that he shall now have an Estate in the Land it self of such a quality as he had before in the Use for the Statute puts all cleerly out of the Feoffees and it is not inconvenient to have a Possession so to a Contingent Use and if it had not been in the words of the Statute yet as hath been sayd it shall be so taken by the intent of the Statute for it never was the intent of the makers of the Statute to do wrong to any by means of the Statute And therfore he put the case of Cramner who made a Feoffment to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use
precedent to it which not being done the Estate of Edmund never hapned to be and therfore he who cometh in under a Discontinuance made by the said William Cocksey after the death of Martin and Giles without Issue notwithstanding the Remitter of the said Alice in the case is to have the Land against those who come in by the said Edmund and upon this point only Iudgment was given accordingly in the Kings Bench. Grenningham versus the Executors of Heydon 4. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200. marks by Richard Grenningham Plaintiff against the Executors of one Ralph Heydon Defendants the case appeared to be this upon Demurrer The said Heydon was bound to the Plaintiff in 200. marks the Condition wherof recites that wheras the said Heydon had received of the said Grenningham 76 l. 6 s 8 d. before the date of the said Obligation of 200. marks in payment and satisfaction of certain Obligations and Bills of debt remaining in the hands of the said Heydon and specified in the Condition what they were in certain and the which said Bills Obligations the said Heydon is to deliver or cause to be delivered to the said Grenningham his heirs or assigns before the Feast of S. Michael next ensuing the date of the said Obligation or otherwise the said Heydon his Executors Administrators or Assigns or some of them before the same Feast shall make or cause to be made and delivered to the said Plaintiff his Heirs and Assigns such good and sufficient Acquittances for the payment of the said summs of money formerly mentioned as the said Plaintiff his Heirs Executors or Assigns shall devise or cause to be devised by the Counsel of the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns before the Feast without fraud or deceit that then the said Obligation shall be void c. And before the Feast the said Plaintiff did not devise any acquittance Whether now the Obligation be saved by the Disjunctive without delivering the Obligations and Bills before named before the Feast of S. Michael Rot. 36 37. Eton and Monney versus Laughter 5. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. by Thomas Eton and Roger See this Case Coke lib. 5. 21. by the name of Laughters case Monney Plaintiff against Thomas Laughter Defendant who was bound together with one Richard Rainford to the said Plaintiffs the Condition of which Odligation was That if the said Richard Rainford after marriage had between him and Jane Gilman Widow together with the said Jane alienate in Fee or Fee-tail all that great Messuage of the said Jane in London in the Tenure of William Fitz Williams Esquire if then the said Richard Rainford in his life time purchase to the said Iane her Heirs and Assigns Lands and Tenements of good Right and Title and of as good value as the money raised upon the alienanation of the said Messuage amounts unto or leave to the said Iane after his decease as Executrix or by Legacy or other good assurance so much money as he shall receive or have upon the said Sale that then the Obligation shall be void after which the said Richard Rainford married with the said Jane and the said Richard and Jane sold the said Messuage in Fee by Fine for 320 l. received by the said Richard Rainford after which the said Iane died no Lands being purchased to the said Iane by the said Richard and the said Richard yet living Michaelmas Term 37 38. Eliz. Sawyer versus Hardy 1. IN an Ejectione firmae by Christopher Sawyer Plaintiff against Edmund Hardy Defendant for a Messuage in S. Martins upon a Demurrer the case was this A Lease was made of the said Messuage to one Margaret Sawyer for 40. years upon Condition that if the said Margaret should so long continue a Widow she should dwell and stay in the same Messuage the said Margaret continued a Widow and dwelt in the same house all her life and died during the said Term of 40. years making the Plaintiff her Executor and by award the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover For by Popham Gawdy and Clench this now was no Condition nor Limitation for it hath no certain conclusion upon the that if to wit that then the Term shall continue or that she shall pay so much or otherwise what the conclusion shall be none can imagine As if such a Lease be made upon condition that if the Lessee does such a thing without other conclusion it is a good Lease for 40. years for none can imagine what the conclusion shall be in such a case or that then the Lease shal be void or that he shall re-enter or that the Lessee shall forfeit so much or what shall happen upon it for which incertainty it shall be taken as a void Clause But by Popham if it had been Sub conditione si tamdiu vixerit it had been good to determine the Lease but it is otherwise of the word quod si for the incertainty as before And they all agreed that if the Lease had been for 40. years Si tamdiu sols viveret inhabitaret in eodem Messuagio that the Lease had been determined by her marriage or death In the same manner as if it had been Si tam diu vixerit And so in truth had been the case if it had been well pleaded but by pleading the advantage therof was lost and the truth not disclosed But by Popham If a Lease be made for 40. years if he shall dwell in the same for his life there it is good for 40. years upon performance of the Condition the diversity appeareth to wit where it is if he shall dwell there during the Term and where it is if he shall inhabit there during his life Goodale versus Wyat. 2. IN an Ejectione firmae by Cuthbert Goodale Plaintif against John Wyat See this Case Coke lib. 5. fol. 95 96. by the name of Goodales case Defendant for a Meadow in Aylesbury in the County of Buck. called Diggelmore upon a speciall Verdict the case was this Sir Iohn Packington Knight enfeoffed therof one Ralph Woodliff to have and to hold to him and his Heirs upon condition that if the said Sir Iohn within a year after the death of the said Ralph pay to the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Ralph the summ of a 100. marks of lawfull money that then the said Feoffment and Seisin made therupon shall be void Ralph Woodliff made a Feoment over to others therof and died intestate and Administration was committed to Anne his Wife and Drew Woodliff his Son and Heir who gave a Warrant of Attorney to Thomas Goodale then seised of the said Meadow by mean conveyances for the receit of the said 100. marks with Covenant that none of them shall do any act or thing that shall be preâ—udiciall or hurtfull to the said Thomas Goodale for the receiving and enjoying of the said summ after which it was certified to the said Sir Iohn Packington by
it shall not be taken by intendment that the Messuages had such a Curtilage to it if it be not specially named Fennors Case 5. IN Trespasse brought by Fennor in the common Bench against for breaking his Close in c. the Defendant pleads a Bar at large to make the Plaintiff assign the place in certain where he supposeth the Trespasse to be done the Plaintiff therupon alledgeth that the place where he complaineth is such c. and sheweth in certain another then that in which the Defendant justifies the Defendant avers that the one and the other are all one and known by the one name and the other and therupon the Plaintiff demurs and adjudged there for the Plaintiff because that in such a case upon such a speciall assignment it shall be taken meerly another then that in which the Defendant justifies in as much as the Plaintiff in such a case cannot maintain it upon his evidence given if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty to this new Assignment that the Trespasse was done in the place in which the Defendant justifies although it be known by the one and the other name and that the Plaintiff hath good Title to it because that by his speciall Assignment saying that it is another then that in which the Defendant justifies he shall never after say that it is the same in this Plea for it is meer contrary to his speciall Assignment And upon this a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and the Iudgment was there affirmed this Term for the same reason Quod nota Scot versus Sir Anthony Mainy 6. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. brought by John Scot Gent. against Sir Anthony Mainy Knight the Condition wherof being to perform the Covenant comprised in an Indenture of Demise made by the said Sir Anthony to the said Plaintiff of his Capitall Messuage in Holden with the Lands to it belonging c. amongst which Covenants one was that wheras by the same Indenture he had demised it to him for 21. years that the said Sir Anthony covenanted with the said John Scot that the said Sir Anthony from time to time during the life of the said Sir Anthony upon the surrender of this Demise or any other Demise hereafter to be made by the said Sir Anthony of the said Messuages and Lands and to be made by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators and upon a new Lease to be made ready ingrossed to be sealed and offered by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators to the said Sir Anthony for the like tearm and number of years in the aforesaid Indenture comprised for the same Rent c. to seal and deliver to the said John Scot his Executors and Administrators And the said Sir Anthony as to this Covenant pleaded did not surrender nor offer to surrender to him the said Demise nor offer to him any new Demise of the Premisses ready engrossed for to seal it for the like Term c. as it is in this Covenant And for the other Covenants he pleads performance of all To which the Plaintiff replies that the said Sir Anthony after the Obligation and before the Action brought had rendred the said Messuages and Lands by Fine to one Walter Savage and William Sheldon their Executors and Assigns for eighty years from the Feast of Easter next before the Fine which was Pasch 36 Eliz. wherby he said that the said Sir Anthony had disabled himself to renew his Lease according to the Covenant upon which it was demurred in the Commen Bench and the Iudgment given for the Plaintiff as appeareth Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 2573. And upon this Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and agreed this Term. And it was moved that the Iudgment given was erroneous in as much as the first act was to be done by John Scot before the new Lease was to be made to wit the surrender of the former Lease and the drawing of the new one ought to have been done by the Plaintiff which not being done on his part the said Sir Anthony is not bound to make the new Lease And also it was moved that as the case is here the said John Scot might surrender to the Defendant notwithstanding the intervening of this Lease between the Lease of the Plaintiff and the Inheritance of the Defendant as if a man make a Lease for years in possession and afterwards make another Lease to a stranger to begin after the end of the former Lease this shall not hinder but that the first Lease may be surrendred to him who was the Lessor notwithstanding the said Term intervening To which it was answered by the Court that the Plaintiff here need not to make any offer of the surrender of his Term to the said Sir Anthony in as much as the said Sir Anthony hath disabled himself to take the Surrender or to take the Lease according to the purport of the Condition and by this disabling of himself the Obligation is forfeited Come per 44 E. 3. 8. and by Littleton also If a man make a Feoffment upon condition to re-enfeoff him this is not to be done untill request therof be made by the Feoffor yet if in the mean time the Feoffee suffer a fained recovery of the Land grant a Rent charge acknowledgeth a Statute taketh a Wife or the like the Feoffor may re-enter without request made to re-enfeoff him and the reason is because that by any of these the Feoffee hath disabled himself to perform the Condition in the same plight as he might have done at the time of the Feoffment in the same manner here for by this render by the Fine the Reversion passe in right so that the Termor in possession attorning to it they shall have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease and therfore the Plaintiff cannot now surrender to the said Sir Anthony but to the Grantees of the Reversion and therfore there shall be no prejudice to the Plaintiff because the Defendant was the cause of disabling the Plaintiff to make the Surrender to him And suppose it be but a Term to begin at a day to come yet by this the Obligation is forfeited because the Obligor hath therby disabled himself to perform the Condition in such a plight as he might have done it when the Obligation was made wherby the Obligation is presently forfeited albeit the Plaintiff never surrender nor offer to do it And therfore the Iudgment there was affirmed Mounson versus West 7. IN an Assise brought in the County of Lincoln before Gawdy and Owen by Thomas Mounson Esquire Demandant against Robert West Tenant for Lands in Sturton Juxta Stu. The Defendant West pleaded Nul Tenant del Frank-tenant named in the Writ and if that be not found then Nul tort nul Disseisin And the Assise found that the said Defendant was Tenant of the Tenements now in Plaint and put in view to the Recognitors of
Terme in the same Court WEld of the Inner Temple moved for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiasticall Court at Worcester and shewed for cause 1. That the suit there was for money which by the assent of the greater part of the Parishioners of D. was assessed upon the Plaintiffe for the reparations of the Church to wit for the recasting of their Bels the truth is that the charge was for the making of new Bels where there were four before whereby it appears that it is meerly matter of curiosity and not of necessity for which Parishioners shall not he liable to such taxations and he relied upon 44. E. 3. 19. by Finchden 2 The party there is overcharged of which the Common Law shall Judge 3 The Party hath alledged a Custome that he and all those who hath an estate in such a Tenement have used to pay but 11 s. for any reparation of the Church But the Prohibition was denied and by Doderidge in the Book of 44 E. 3. there was a By-law in the case to distrain which is a thing meerly temporal for which the Prohibition was granted per Curiam in this case the assessment by the major part of the Parishioners binds the party albeit he assented not to it and the Court seemed to be of Opinion that the Custome was not reasonable because iâ—â—aid a burthen upon the rest of the Parish Littleton of Counsell of the other side suppose the Church falls shall he pay but 11 s. Whitlock If the Church falls the Parishioners are not bound to build it up again which was not denied by Justice Jones The same Term in the same Court A Prohibition was prayed because a person had libelled in the Ecclesiasticall Court for the tenth part of a bargain of Sheep which had depastured in the Parish from Michaelmas to Lady day and the party surmised that he would pay the tenth of the Wooll of them according to the custome of the Parish But the Prohibition was denyed for as Doderidge Iustice sayd by this way the person shall bee defrauded of all if he shall not have his recompence for now the Sheepe are gone to another Parish and he cannot have any Wooll at this time because it was not the time of sheering Nota per Whitlock de animalibus inutilibus the Person shall have the tenth part of the bargain for depasturing as Horses Oxen c. but de Animalibus Utilibus he shall have the Tith in specie as Cowes Sheep c. The same Term in the same Court UPon an Issue joyned in an Ejectione firmae it was found for the Plaintiff and Lewkoor moved in arrest c. because the Ejectione firmae was de Messuagio â—ive Tenemento which is not good for the incertainty and so it was resolved 12. Jac. in this Court and Ejectione firmae lies not De Tenemento Co. lib. 11. 54. Savils case And it was resolved in the Exchequor-chamber that it lies not de pecia terrae and in this Court in Rhetorick and Chappels Case it was resolved that it lyes not De Mess Tenemento The same Term in the same Court Sir Robert Browne against Sir Robert Stroud IN debt upon an Obligation for performance of certain Covenants contained in certain Indentures made between the Parties aforesaid and the Covenant upon which the question did arise was this R. B. being seised of the Mannor of Dale S. R. S. of the Mannor of Sale they exchanged the one for the other and the Mannor of R. B. being more worth then the Mannor of R. S. R. S. covenanted to pay for the said Mannor 1200 l. and no time was limited when the money should be payd and the money not being payd within a year after R. B. bargained and sold the said Mannor by Deed indented and inrolled to J. S. and his Heirs and afterwards brought an Action of Debt against the said R. S. for the said 1200 l. who pleaded this mater in Bar and Jermy argued for the Plaintiff that this Plea shall not discharge the Defendant of the said Covenant for it is a reciprocall covenant and he ought to sue the other Party for the breach of the covenant and it is a perfect bargain Dyer 30. 14. H. 8. 9. and here the Agreement is in writing and it is good albeit there be no limitation when the money shall be payd 37. H. 6. 9. Calthrop for the Defendant that the Action could not lyâ— for the contract is Executory and therefore is not to pay the money till he hath the Mannor for the Covenant is that pro Maner c. he should pay him 1200 l. and the word pro implies a condition and consideration and being excecutory on the one part shall be also executory on the other part 9. E. 4. 20. 21. Abridg. in Plowden 134. in Browning and Bestons case 15. E. 4. 4. If A. grant to B. all the ancient Pale and for them B. grants that he will make new Pale for A. if B. cannot have the old Pale he shall be excused from making the new Pale for he cannot have the one without doing the other 6. E. 6. Dyer 75. The contract was pro 20. which makes a condition 15. H. 7. 10. by Fineaux If a man covenant with me to serve me for a yeare and I covenant to give him 10 l. he shall have an Action for the 10 l. although hee do not serve me otherwise if I covenant to give him 10 l. for his service Also there is no time limited when the payment shall be made true it is that in Co. lib. 6. 30. when the act to be done is a transitory act and no time is limited there it ought to be done in convenient time but the Law shall judge of the conveniency of this time and the Law will never judge the time of payment to be before he hath the Mannor pro quo c. In many cases when no time is limited the Law will appoint a time as appeareth in 33. H. 6. 48. and Perkins 799. But now in our case the Law will never appoint that this money shall be payd because the other party hath disabled himselfe to perform his part like to Sir Anthony Maines case Co. lib. 5. 21. Doderidge The bargain is not perfect because no day of payment is limited and the other shall have no Action of Debt for the money before he hath the Mannor Jones If I covenant to make a Feoffment to J. S. and he covenant in consideration of that Covenant to pay me 10 l. he shall have an Action of Debt against me before he hath made the Feoffment And at another day in Trinity Term. 3. Car. Noy argued for the Plaintiff and opened the case thus Amongst other Covenants in certain Indentures between them it was agreed that wheras Sir R. Brown the Father was sâ—ized of the MaÌ„nor of Gadmaston with the Advowson appendent Sir R. Stroud of the MaÌ„nor of D. within the same CouÌ„ty that there
another 20. H. 6. 15. And a scilicet is but an Exposition of that which is once before and it shall not destroy the precedent matter but if it be contrary to it it is voyd Co. lib. 5. Knights case A scilicet shall not make an alteration of that which went before 15. Jac. B. R. Desmond and Iohnsons Case In a Trover and Conversion the Plaintiffe declared that he was possessed of the said goods 1 Jan. 15. Jac. and that Postea scil the first day of May hee in the yeare aforesaid lost them and that they came to the hands of the Defendant and upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe and this was moved in arrest of Judgement and by the Court the scil was agreed to be void and the Postea good and the like case was 17. Jac. in Debt The second Question is a man makes Conusance for Rent for him in remainder in taile and does not alledge the precise time when the Lessee for life died but onely that he died and I conceive that it is well enough 1. Because an Avowry which is in lieu of an action is a reall action and in reall actions no precise day need to be alledged 2. Because he avows for 4 s. rent due and the arreare to the remainder which implies that the Lessee for life is dead See 14. Eliz. Dyer The case of a person in one Arundalls case a man was Lessee for ninty years if the Lady Morley should so long live in an action brought by him as Lessee for years in his Declaration he did not averre that the Lady Morley was alive and yet awarded good Trin. 12. Jac. in Hord and Paramores case the defendant avowed as Heir of Sir John Arundell and alledged no time incertaine of the death of Sir John Arundell and yet awarded good for the reason aforesaid and therefore he prayed Judgment for the Avowant The same Terme in the same Court. Jenkin versus Vivian IN trespas Jermy for the Plaintiff took some exceptions to the Plea of the Intr. Hill 1. Car. Rot. 331. Defendant 1. That the Defendant claim common in Trigemore Moore ratione Vicinagii and doth not say a tempore cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit 2. The Defendant alledgeth that he and all his Occupiers of Down-close had used to have common in the said Tridgemore Moore c. whereas he ought to have shown what estate they had in Down-close who have used to have this coÌ„mon Rol. there néed no prescriptioÌ„in this case no more then in a coÌ„mon appendant which case of a coÌ„mon appendaÌ„t was agreed by the whole Court for it is mixt 6. E. 4. 55. Co. lib. Intr. 625. tit trespas For the 2. exception I agree that if it be by way of prescription then it is not good as it is alledged here but if it be by way of custome as here it is then it is good for a custome goes to Land and a Prescription to persons Hill 11. Jac. Higgs brought an Action upon the Case for erecting of a new Mill and alledged a Custome that he and all the Inhabitants c. an exception was taken to it and it was there ruled that it was good because alledged by way of custome Co. lib. 6. Gatewards case and also Mich. 14. Jac. it way be alledged by way of custom as our case is and 15. E. 4. when it is by way of discharge it may be alledged in all Occupiers Jermy for the Plaintiff It cannot be a custom here for as it is in 23. Eliz. Dyer A custom cannot extend to a particular place and this was agreed by the whole Court But there is another exception he clayms common in Tridgemore Moore for cattle levant and couchant in Down-close and does not aver that these beasts were levant and couchant upon Down-close and per totam Curiam this ought to be averred and it was also agreed that in this case he ought to have prescribed But for the exception of all occupiers it was doubted but for the other exceptions Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff The same Term in the same Court. Chambers Case IT was said in this case that in debt upon a Recognizance acknowledged in Chancery or in any other Court the Defendant cannot demand Oyer of the condition for the Recognizance is not in Court as an obligation is when debt is brought upon it But if Debt be brought upon a Recognizance acknowledged in this Court then the Defendant may demand Oyer of the Recognizance The same Term in the same Court Harison versus Errington IN Error to reverse an Inditement of rescous and Riot taken in the County Palatine of Durham Bankes assigned the Errors whereof one was therâ— was a Warrant to three conjunctim divâ—sim to arrest the sayd Harison and two of them arrest him and therefore the Arrest was not well done for it ought to have been by one or all three and the reason is because it is a ministeriall act otherwise if it had been a judiciall act 14. H. 4. 34. 2. The Inditement of Riot was against three and the Iury found only one of them guilty of the â—â—â—ot this is a voyd verdict for one alone cannot make a riot like to the case in 11. H. 4. 2. Conspiracy against two and only one of them is found guilty it is voyd for one alone cannot conspire And at another day in the same Term Noy took other exceptions 1. Because the Inditement is Jurator pro Domino Rege presentant c. and doth not say that 12. Iurors presentant and peradventure but 11. did present 2. The names of the Iurors ought to have been certified for peradventure they are not probe legales homines but Villains and Outlawes 15. H. 4. 41. 3. It is sound that Rolson the Sheriff by vertue of a Writ directed to him came c. and upon this rescous was made by Harrison c. and it doth not appear what manner of Writ it was scilicet Elegit Capias ad satisfaciend on c. and if there were no Writ there can be no rescous and albeit he had a Writ yet if execution were done by vertue of another Writ which he had the Party may disobey it as if upon an habere facias seisinam the Sheriff makes a Warrant as upon a Capias the party is not bound to obey the Bayliffe if hee bee not a Bayliffe knowne but in case it appeares they were only Bayliffs pro hac Vice Nota that an Inditement before Coronâ—rs which found that the Earl of B. was felo de se was quasht because it did not appear that it was per sacramentum probor legal hominum And in the case of Sarum this Term an Inditement was quasht for the same cause The same Term in the same Court. Rochester versus Rickhouse IN a writ of Error to reverse a Judgement given in Ejectione firmae in Newcastle Banks assigned these errors 1. The Plaintiffe declares of
a Lease made de Burg. sine Tent. which is not good no more then in Ejectione firmae de Mess sive Tent. 2. Because the Judgement is not quod capitur as it ought to be because it is vi armis 3. The judgement is Ideo concessum est where it ought to be consideratus est and for these Errors the Judgement was reversed And the same day another Judgement between Bell and Margery Strongury was reversed for the same causes The same Term in the same Court. Petit versus Robinson IN Error to reverse a Iudgment given in C. B. in a Replevin there Jermy for the Plaintiff assigned two Errors 1. It appears that after the Writ and before the triall it was coram Justiciar Dic. Domini Regis and there was not any speech of any King but of King James before and there is no speech of his demise and therefore this shall be intended before the Iustices of King James which cannot be 2. Because the Nisi prius is certified to be tried before Francisco Harvey Mill. uno Justiciar c. the Postea returned is before Francisco Harvey Arm. argued so there was no such Iudge of Nisi prius as Francis Harvey Banks for the Defendant I conceive the first errors to be because the adjournment was per br Dom. Reg. and King James was named before so that the objection may be that it shall be intended the Writ of Adjournment of King James which cannot be but I conceive the Writ is generall and shall not be intended â—hat it can be adjourned by the Kings Writ who was dead before and the Clerk of the Assises who certified it is bound to take notice of the Kings death 37. H. 6. 28. and also the Record is not per br Dic. Dom. Regis but per br Domini Regis generally And for the second I conceive it is no error and if it be error then if the Certificate be not according to the Copy out of which the Clerke certifies it shall be amended 22. E. 4 22. 35. H. 6. 23. b. Co. lib. 8. 136. Blackmores case which is a stronger case then this But it hath been objected that the Record is certified by the Iustices and now there can be no averment to the contrary but I conceive that this Court may send to the Clark of the Assizes to amend it and those objections were over-ruled in C. B. in the same case Doderidge Iustice I conceive that notwithstanding these exceptions the Iudgement ought to be affirmed for as to the first the Court is bound to take notice of the demise of the King and therefore it shall be intended the King that now is and so the Writ of adâ—ournment good enough in Dyer King Henry 8. made a Patent and it was Eâ—ricus Dei gratia c. where it should be Henricus and yet the Patent good so in a Writ to the Bishop the subscription is Episcop Norw this is good enough for the Bishop of Norwich is very well known And for the other I conceive it is not well alledged because it is not showne whether he were a Knight at the time of the Certificate or not and so it may well stand together that he was a Knight for he might be an Esquire at the time of the triall and before the Record certified might be made Knight Jones Iustice to the same intent and that we ought to take notice of the demise of the King therefore it shall be intended of the Writ of adjournment of the King which now is and therefore it is no error and yet if it were it were amendable Whitlock Iustice agreed and therefore the Iudgement was affirmed by the whole Court The same Term in the same Court. Crabbe and his Wife versus Tooker IN Covenant betweene Walter Crabbe and Anne his Wife against Tooker the covenant upon which the breach was layd was this Tooker the Defendant covenanted with Tooker his Son and Anne Slade one of the Plaintiffs whom he intended to marry to give them their meat and drink in his house and if any discontent should happen between the Father and Son so that he and his Wife Anne should disagree to dwell with Tooker the Father then they should have 6. Beasts gates c. Tooker the Son died Anne disagree to dwell with Tooker the Father and marries with Crabbe who with hâ—s Wife Anne brings this Action and Taylor argued for the Planitiff that the Action lies for albeit the Covenant be in the conjunctive if they disagree yet it shall have a disjunctive interpretation as where a man covenant to levy a fine to one and his heirs if he dies the Covenantor may levy a fine to his Heirs and Hill and Granges case in Plow Two Tenants in common grant a rent this shall be taken for severall Rents and Co. lib. 5. Slingesbyes case also the Wife is party to this covenant and she must either have remedy upon this covenant after the death of her Husband or not at all for she cannot disagree in the life time of her Husband per que c. And it was agreed on the other side that there ought to be a dislike between all joyntly the Father the Son and the Wife and now one of them being dead the covenant is discharged like to the case put in Brudenels case Co. lib. 5. If Administration be grant during the minority of 3 if one of them dies the administration ceaseth and 31. Eliz. in C. B. A Lease was made to three and the Lessor grants to them to be dispunishable of Wast quamdiu cohabitarent one of them dies and it was resolved that now they shall be liable to wast Also the Bar is not bone for it is pleaded that Discordia orta fuit and doth not shew what manner of discord this was and therefore not good as 3 H 6. In Annuity brought Pro concilio c. he ought to shew for what manner of Councel it was Whitlock Justice was of opinion for the Plaintiff and that this Covenant extends to the Wife and that upon equall construction because it comes in place of the first Covenant and this was intended for the benefit of the Wife as well after the death of the Husband as before Jones Justice was of the contrary opinion and that the second covenant was a severall covenant from the first and that the disagreement is to be made by all three joyntly and that when one dies the Covenant is gone 2. Eliz. Dyer A man will that A. B. and C. his Feoffees shall sell his Land B. dies now the Authority is determined The Lord Gray committed the custody of his Son to four one of them dies the authority is gone and in this case there is no matter of interest but an agreement and in such a case as this is a Feme covert hath a will albeit she hath no legall will but in this case there ought to be a disagreement of both and
there ought to be a dislike of the Father also and in the Declaration it is also said that she dis-agreed Doderidge agreed with Jones that â—he Declaration is not good and that it is not warranted by the Covenant and that the breach is not well assigned The case is grounded upon the second covenant which consists upon a contingency which contingency is if there happen any discord between the Father and the Son c. the words are joynt and all ought to disagree True it is that in some cases a conjunctive shall be taken for a disjunctive but this is according to the matter and circumstances of the fact but in our case it shall not be taken disjunctively If the Father the Son and the Wife had disagreed then it is cleer that an Action of covenant lies but this is casus omissus and no provision for it Also it is only alledged in the Declaration that she disagreed whereas a mutuall disagreement between all ought to be alledged and therefore Judgement was given Quod quaerens mil. capiat per bellam But all agreed that the Wife might have boarded with Tooker the Father if she would but her new Husband could not AT thowe Sergeant took divers exceptions to an Inditement of forcible entry upon the Stat. of 8. H. 6. against Ployden and others for expelling one Syms from his Copi-hold and the principall exception was because disseisivit was not in the Inditement and in truth it cannot for albeit the Stat. of 21. Jac. cap. 15. gives power to Iudges and Iustices of Peace to give restitution of possession to Tenants for yeares and Copy-holders in which there shal be an entry or detainer by force yet the Stat. does not give an Inditement of forcible entry of copy-hold Noy a Copy-holder shal now have an Iditement of forcible entry but disseisivit shal not be in it for no Iury will find that because it is not possible because a Copy-holder hath no Frée-hold and yet a Copy-holder shall have a Plaint in nature of an Assize against a stranger but not against the Lord And at last the opinion of the Court was that the Inditement was good UPon a Capias directed to the Sheriff of London to take the body of J. S. the Capias was returnable die Jovis which was the day of All-souls and thereupon the Sheriff took the party but he returned that because the return of the Writ was upon a day that was not Dies Juridicus he suffered the party to go at large And the return was holden insufficient for by Doderidge the Writ was good and the taking and detaining of the party by vertue thereof was lawfull but yet he could not have the party there at the sayd day and therefore the Sheriff was compelled to bring the party into Court which the same day he did accordingly The same Term in the same Court A Man granted a Rent charge of 12 l. to one of his Sons out of the Mannor of D. by Déed and died the Grantée lost his Deed the Land is extended to I. D. by vertue of a Recognizance acknowledged by the eldest Son of the Grantor the Grantée sue for his Annuity before the Councell of York to be relieved in equity for that in respect of the losse of the Déed he could not have remedy at the common-Law and J. D. the Conuzée obtained a prohibition out of this Court upon this surmize that although the Councel of York should make a Decree that he should pay the said Annuity yet it should be no discharge for so much against the Conuzor because their Decrée was no legall eviction Now came Smith of the Temple and prayed a Precedendo for the Grantée to the Councel of York and the opinion of the whole Court was that a Decrée there being no legall eviction shall not be a discharge for so much against the Conuzor Doderidge the Grantée of the Rent-charge having now lost his Déed can have no remedy in equity for in this case Equitas sequitur legem and of the same opinion were Jones and Whitlock but by Doderidge which was not denied if the Grantee had lost the Deed by a casuall losse as by firâ— c. in such a case he shall have remedy in equity and he sayd that in the beginning of King James when Egerton was Lord Chancellor there was such a Case in Chancery A Grantee of a rent-seck had seisen of it so that he might have an assize and he devised it to J. S. the Devisée sued in Chancery to have his Rent and seizen of it and he could have no remedy for it in Chancery And this was one Malleryes case The same Term in the same Court ONe Hebborne was indited for stopping a way c. and it was mooved that the inditement was insufficient because it is not layd that it was communis via but only that it was a way to the Church and per Curiam it was good enough and by Jones Iustice the Inditement is good enough although there wants vi armis because he who is supposed to stop the way is owner of the Land The same Term in the same Court AN Action upon the Case upon a promise was brought in the Town of Northampton and the Consideration alledged was that if the Defendant here in the Writ of Errour would discharge Bagnot of Execution c. that then the Plaintiff here in this Writ of Errour promised to pay him eleven pounds and there the Defendant pleaded quod exoneravit illum de Executione relaxavit And Bolstred for the Plaintiffe moved this for Errours that the Plaintiffe in the inferiour Court did not shew by what manner of release it was nor that it was by writing for this being the Consideration upon which the Action is grounded ought to be put in certain Mich. 15. Iac. Staple and King Execution of a consideration ought to be shown 35 H. 6. 19. a discharge ought to be shown in certain 22 E. 4. 43. the Lord Lisles Case and Mich. 16. Iac. in this Court Liverel and Rivets Case which was entred Trin. 16. Iac. Rot. 32â— in an Action upon the Case upon a promise upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe and it was moved in arrest of Judgement because the Consideration was that the Plaintiffe should discharge one Ogle and he declares that he did discharge him and thereupon he brought this Action and because he declared but generally quod exoneravit the Judgement for that very cause was stayed and 36 Eliz. one covenanted to make an assurance and pleaded generally that he had assured and resolved that it was not good and in Rosse and Harvies Case this Term which was entred Trin. 2 Car. Rot. 1408. In Covenant the Defendant covenanted to give security the Defendant pleaded that he offered security and resolved that it was not good per que c. Jermy for the Defendant that the plea is good enough for a Release by Peroll is sufficient I
alter the intendment that the Law hath otherwise of the words And Gawdy agreed also that in such cases the Defendant may plead the generall Issue and upon the matter also the Jury ought to find him not guilty But Popham and Clench sayd that this was a dangerous matter to be put in the mouthes of the Lay Gents as hath been said before and therfore to put it to the Iudgment of the Law by pleading And for the exception they ought to have shewn here where by whom and against whom the Petition was delivered to this they said that the exception was to no purpose for this was but a conveyance to the Speech used which Speech was the substance of the Bar and in this they put the case of the Lord Cromwell which was in this Court 22 Eliz. Rot. 752. In an Action upon the Statute of Scandalum Magnatum by him brought against Thomas Dye Clark for saying to the Lord Cromwel It is no news though you like not of me for you like of those that maintain Sedition against the Queens proceedings in which the Defendant said that he was Vicar of North Linham in the County of Norf. and that the Plaintff mentioned one Vincent Goodwyn Clark at such a time and one Iohn Trendle at such another time neither of them being licenced to preach in the said Church against the will of the said Defendant and shew how they severally preached there in their Sermons and shew certainly in what point Seditious Doctrine against the Laws of the Church as against the Crosse used in Baptisme and the wearing of the Surplice and that afterwards in speech therupon between the said Plaintiff and him the Plaintiff said to the Defendant That the Defendant was a false Knave and said in English words that he liked not of the Defendant wherupon the Defendant said the words comprised in the Declaration Innuendo That he liked of the said Goodwyn and Trendle who maintain Sedition Innuendo seditious Doctrine against the Queens proceedings Innuendo predict Leges Stat. Ecclâ—siae hujus regni Angl. c. And the Plaintiff was put to answer Scilicet de injuria sua propria absque tali causa c. And note in this case the Defendant would first have justified for the matter preached by one and it was not allowed by the Court but he was put to speak to both or otherwise it had not been good because his speeches were in the plurall number to wit That he liked of those which refers to more then to one And it was said in this case that the word Subject might have severall significations according to the circumstance wherupon it is spoken As Subiect generally without more is to be intended of the Queen but according to the circumstance it may be said Subject of England or Subject of Ireland or Subject to the Law or subject to any other authority or power set over him or subject to his Affections And if a man saith of another that he is a Subject and therfore he ought to serve the Queen in her Warrs and he answers that he is sorry for that and is grieved for it no Action wil lye for this because the grievance refers to service which is to be done and not to his Subjection as a Subject Dillon versus Fraine 9. IN Trespasse brought by William Dillon Esquire against John Fraine See this in Cook lib. 1. 120. bâ— the name of Chudleighs case for breaking of his Close at Tavestock in the County of Devon called Seden upon not guilty and a speciall Verdict the case appeared to be this to wit that Sir Richard Chudleigh Knight was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the Mannor of Hescot with the Appurtenances in the County of Devon of which the said Close was parcel and so seised 26 April 3 4 Phil. Mar. by his Deed of Feoffment of the same date enfeoffed Sir Tho. Saintleger Knight and others and their Heirs of the said Mannor to the use of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh and his Heirs of the body of the said Elizabeth then the wife of Richard Bainfield Esquire lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue then to the use of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh and of his Heirs of the bodies of other wives of other persons lawfully begotten And for default of such Heirs then to the use of the performance of the Will of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh for 10. years after his decease and after the said Term finished then to the use of the said Sir John Saintleger and his Co-feoffees and their Heirs during the life of Christopher Chudleigh Son and Heir apparant of the said Sir Richard and after the death of the said Christopher then to the use of the first Issue Male of the body of the said Christopher and to the Heirs Males of the body of this first Issue Male and for default of such Issue to the second Issue Male of the body of the said Christopher to the Heirs Males of the body of this second Issue Male and so to the tenth Issue Male And for default of such Issue then to the use of Thomas Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten And for default of such Issue to the use of Oliver Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten And for default of such Issue to the use of Nicholas Chudleigh another Son of the said Sir Richard and of the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten and for default of such Issue to the right Heirs of the said Sir Richard Chudleigh for ever wherby they were seised accordingly after which the 17th of Novemb. 5 6. Phil. Mar. the said Sir Richard died without any Heir of the body of any of the wives before mentioned And after that the said Christopher took to wife one Christian Strecheley after which to wit the 14th day of August 1 Eliz. the said Sir John Saintleger and the other Feoffees by their Deed of the same date enfeoffed the said Christopher of the said Mannor to have and to hold to him and his Heirs for ever to the use of the said Christopher and his Heirs the said Oliver Chudleigh then being living after which to wit the 20th day of September 3 Eliz the said Christopher had Issue of his body lawfully begotten one Strechly Chudleigh his first Issue Male And after this to wit the 30. day of March 5 Eliz. the said Christopher had Issue of his body lawfully begotten one John Chudleigh his second Issue Male after which to wit the first day of July 6 Eliz. the said Christopher by his Deed indented of the same date and inrolled within six months according to the Statute bargained and sold the said Mannor to Sir John Chichester Knight and to his Heirs and in the interint also between the date of this Deed and in the inrolement therof to
If the Tenant for life had made a Feoffment in Fee and he in the Remainder had released to the Feoffee the Vse had been gone for ever so in all these cases of contingent Vses at this day for he who cometh to the possession of Land by Disseisin or wrong done to the Possessor who is seised to anothers use shall never be seised to anothers use And the case being so that it is out of the letter of the Statute to execute such contingent Vses it is more strong for them out of the meaning of the Statute to execute then before they happen to be in Esse for this shall be to make all mischiefs comprehended in the Preamble of this Statute and against which the Statute intended to provide sufficient remedy in a worse mischief then they were before the making of the same Statute and this shall be but a perverse instruction of the Statute And they said that the subtleties used from time to time by means of those Vses to the great deceit and trouble of the people were the cause of the making of this Statute 27 H. 8. and by all the Statutes formerly made touching Vses it appeareth that they were all taken to be grounded upon fraudulent and crafty devises and therfore this Law had no great purpose to favour them but a Fortiorari not to make them in worse case by means of the Statute then they were before and therfore it shall not be taken that the Vse is executed by the Statute which stands upon a contingency of which a greater mischief will ensue then there was in such a case before the Statute and therfore by the Feoffment made in the interim before the birth of the Infants which otherwise ought to have preserved the Vse this Vse was utterly destroyed and although the Feoffee of Christopher had notice of the Vse yet this doth not now help in the case because the Feoffment did wrong to the Estate first setled which was subject to the Vse and extinct in the same possibility which had been otherwise in the Feoffees to have given livelyhood to the said Contingent Vse And therfore the Iudgment by them ought to be that the Plaintiff shall be barred Walmesley That the great mischief which was at Common Law upon these Feoffments to Uses was that none could know upon the occupation of the Land who was true Owner of the Land for Cestay que Vse was the Pernor of the Profits but in whom the Freehold or Inheritance of the Land was there were not many which knew wherby great mischief came to the assurances which men had of Land which they purchased and by it men knew not against whom to bring their Actions to recover their Rights and by it Wives lost their Dowers Husbands their Tenancy by the Curtesie Lords their Escheats Wardships and the like And this mischief hapned by reason that one had the profit and another the estate of the Land And the Statute was made to put the Land and the Estate quite out of the Feoffee who before did not meddle with the Land to Cestay que Use who before had but the occupation and profits of the Land and to this intent the letter of the Law serves very well which sayes that the Estate of the Feoffee shall be cleerly in Cestuy que Use and therfore nothing by the intent and letter of the Law is now to remain in the Feoffee no more then a Scintilla juris nemor'd in Brents Case in my Lord Dyer Eliz. and the whole Estate in the interim untill the contingent happen shall be in them who have their Vses in Esse and when the Contingent happen the Statute gives place to this Contingent Vse and by the execution therof comes between the Estates before executed and as out of these by the Statute but nothing is now after the Statute in the Feoffees for the purpose of the Statute was as I have said to take away all from the Feoffee for all was devested from him because that betwixt the Feoffor the Feoffee was all the fraud before the Statute and the very letter of the Statute is to extinguish and extirpate the assurances fraudulently made which was alwaies by reason of assurances made between the Estate of the Land in one and the possession therof in another and to cause that now that the Estate shall be to the use where the occupation was before And this Statute was not made to extinguish or discredit Vses but to advance them as by bringing the very Estate in possession to the Vse and by it the trust now taken from all others who were trusted with it before so the Statute doth not condemn the uses but the fraud which was by reason of them before And the Statute being that the Estate Right and Title of the Feoffees shall go to the uses therfore nothing remaineth in the Feoffees but all by authority of Parliament adjudged to be in Cestay que use which is the highest Iudgment that can be given in any Court and the words Stand and be seised at any time refer as well to the future as present uses and the Statute intended as well to help the uses which shall be upon any Contingent as those which are at present for a future or contingent Vse is to be said an Vse according to its nature or quality and it shall be executed according to its quality when it happen And the words are that the Estate which was in the Feoffee shall be in Cestay que use and not the Estate which is and therfore when the use hapneth to be in an instant the Estate which at the first Livery was in the Feoffee to this use shall now be executed in possession to this contingent use albeit it self was altogether executed as I said before in the Vses which were in Esse and if so it followeth that nothing which is done in the mean time by the Feoffee or can be done by any other can prejudice or hurt the execution of this Vse in contingency when the contingency happen And for the case of Brook 30 H. 8. it is plain in paint which is this A Covenant with B. that if B. enfeoff him of three acres of Land in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs and all others seised of such Lands shall stand therof seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs after which A enfeoffed a stranger of this Land after which B. enfeoffed the said A of the said three acres now the use shall be to the said B. and his Heirs of the said other Land for the Statute so binds the Land to this Contingency when it happens that by no means it can be defeated and this is the cause that Leases made by force of Provisoes comprised in assurances are good and cannot be avoided for the Interests to these Leases is wrought by the first Livery and the Statute atd therfore upon the matter I conceive that Judgment ought