John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
awarded not good p. 100 Two Matters are in Issue the Jury find the one and says nothing to the other if a good Verdict p. 149 Where eating and drinking of the Jurors at their own charges doth not make the Verdict void otherwise if at the charges of any of the parties p. 267 Unity Of possession where shall extinct a Common p. 127 Usurpation Where puts the King out of possession where not p. 17 W. WAger of Law Where cannot be upon an Agreement that one Creditor be acquitted against the other for Debt p. 212 258 Warrants Of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed not good p. 84 Warranty Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee a collateral Ancestor releaseth with Warranty a bar to the Issue p. 212 Wasts p. 7 60 What a sufficient Plea in it what not p. 9 Wills General words in a Will where not enlarge special words before in it p. 18 Words in a Will or Testament conditional where construed not to give tail by Implication Upon a Devise for three where the words of the Will shall be taken distributively and not jointly p. 117 Not to be taken by Implication p. 131 In a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed p. 167 Withernam Upon return of a Withernam if the Plaintiff tendereth the Damages he shall have a special Writ to restore his Chattel p. 236 Writs In a recovery upon a Writ in the Court of a Mannor the party who recovered in it cannot be put in possession with the Posse Comitatus p. 99 In the nature of a Scire Facias out of the Court of Admiralty to repeal Letters Patents of an Office is good p. 192 FINIS An Exact TABLE to the Three Parts of Reports of Mr. William Leonard And a Correction of divers Mistakes in Printing of Cases and other Matters in all the Three BOOKS A Denotes the first B the second and C the third Book A Abatement of Writs IF one of three Executors die pend brevi the Writ abates A. 44. Administrator sued as Executor may abate the Writ if the Administrat was committed before Action brought A. 69. A Feme sole Plaintiff takes Baron the Writ is not abated but abateable A. 168 169. If matter of Abatement appear in any part of the Record the Court after Judgment will reverse the Judgment A. 255. Action does not abate if the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass and before the Return of the Writ of Enquiry A. 263. Death after Issue joyned no cause of Abatement in the Civil-Law A. 278. The Writ shall abate if it appear the Plaintiff cannot recover the thing in demand A. 333 334. In what Real Actions two Tenants may plead several Tenancy B. 8. It an Action shall abate after the Verdict if it appear to be brought before time A. 186 187. B. 20. Writ shall abate if the Feme be put before the Baron B. 59. Where upon pleading Joyntenancy or Villenage the Writ shall abate without any answer to the Pleas B. 161 162. Where a Writ shall abate Ex Officio Curiae B. 162. A Writ of Deceit not abated by the death of one Defendant C. 3. Abeyance In what Cases a Use may be in Abeyance B. 18. C. 21 22 23. The like of a Remainder B. 73. Acceptance Where the Issue of him in Remainder accepts the Rent of Tenant for life it is a good affirmance of his Estate A. 243. What Acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall bar him of his Re-entry for non-payment A. 262. The Acceptance of Rent by the Feme confirms the Lease of the Husband C. 271. The like by Issue in Tail of a Lease not warranted by the Statute C. 271. The like by an Infant at his full Age C. 271. The like of a Lease by a Predecessor and the Successor accepts the Rent C. 271. By the Wives Acceptance of Dower out of Lands exchanged she agrees to the Exchange C. 271. One disclaims and after the Lord accepts the Rent of the Tenant the Lord is barred of his right Sur Disclaimer C. 272. Pending a Cessavit Tenant aliened the Lord accepts Services from the Alienee he is barred C. 272. Accord and Concord No Bar if not executed A. 19. C. 212. Account Duresse a good Bar to it A. 13. Capias ad Comp. after a former executed A. 87. The power of Auditors A. 219. Of what things an Auditor by Deed may make Allowance A. 219. The power of an Auditor deputed by a private person A. 219. The difference of an Auditor deputed by Parol and by Deed A. 219. After Account and the Defendant found in Arrear and then the Defendant dies yet the Plaintiff shall recover A. 263. Lies not for the profits of Lands if the Defendant were in by Title A. 226. C. 24. If the Jury ought to assess Damages A. 302. B. 118 196. C. 150 192 230. What may be pleaded in Ear or must be pleaded in discharge before the Auditors B. 30 31 195. If a Factor account to one of many joynt Traders it is sufficient B. 75 76. If the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave him the Goods he must traverse that he was Bailiff to render account B. 195. If it lies against a meer Trespasser or wrongdoer C. 24. Where Account or an Action upon the Case lies against one who receives Mony to buy Cattle and does not buy them C. 38. In some Cases it lies against an Apprentice C. 62. Action upon the Case for Tort See Nusance Trover Slander For Erecting a Fould-course in disturbance of the Lord who had one by Prescription A. 11. By a Father against the Master of his Son for beating and laming his Son whereby he was disparaged in Marriage A. 50. Where it lies for malitiously indicting of Felony A. 107 108. Lies and not Trespass for pulling down Hurdles in a Market A. 108 109. Lies against an Under-Sheriff who took Mony to return but did not return a Summons A. 146. Against a Justice of Peace for Arresting one for Felony without accusation A. 187. Against a Mayor for not taking Bail to an Action A. 189. By Tenant in ancient Demesne for taking Goods for Toll A. 231 232. B. 190. By a Sheriff against a Prisoner who escaped out of Execution satisfaction being acknowledged A. 237. If it lies for retaining anothers hired Servant A. 240. Lies for a Tenant in Fee for a Nusance though he may have an Assise A. 247 273. Con. C. 13. If it lies for diverting a Mill-stream without Prescription A. 273. If it lies against a Justice of Peace for refusing to examine one who is Robbed A. 323 324. For conspiring with a Factor to cheat the Plaintiff who was a Joynt Trader with the Defendants in Account B. 75 76. For laying too much weight on a Floor which fell into the Plaintiffs Wares B. 93. An over-loading a borrowed Horse B. 104. By a Commoner for over-charging the Common with Conies B. 203. Against
Middlesex may inquire by inquest of Office of the Customs in London C. 127. Inrollments If a Lease enrolled be lost the Jur. is not of any effect A. 329. Where a Deed may operate both by the Statute of Inrollment and of Uses C. 16. What is a good Plea against a Deed enrolled A. 183 184 B. 121. How the time is accompted for the six Months A. 183 184. If it be enrolled non refert if it were acknowledged C. 84. How a Corporation must acknowledge a Deed C. 84. Intendment Where two several quantities of Acres shall not be intended all one A. 44. Where the intent of a Man is traversable ib. 50. Where issuable B. 215. Where and how the Law construes the Intent of one who enters in Land A. 127. Where mentioning a Rent of 8 l. and after saying 8 l. Rent is intended the same Rent without the word praedict ' A. 173. How far the Law takes matters by Intendment in Wills Deeds c. A. 204 210 211. St. Martins and St. Michaels day what Feasts by Intendment A. 241. Where want of an Averment is aided by Intendment A. 281. C. 42 43. Where Baron and Feme are vouched it is intended to be in right of the Feme A. 291. If a Service be reserved according to the value of the Land it is intended the then present value B. 117. C. 114. Seisin in Fee is intended to continue until the contrary appear C. 42 43 96. Intrusion Bar therein by Grant of the King A. 9. Into the Rectory and receiving the Tithes A. 48. Disceit is no Bar therein for nullum tempus occurrit Regi B. 31 32. The Information is prout patet per recorda If the Defendant plead a Title If he need to traverse nul tiel record B. 30 31. If every continuance is a new Intrusion where the first Entry was lawful B. 206 207. Joynt-Tenants and Tenants in Common One Joynt-Tenant of the next avoidance to a Church Ecclesia vacante releases to his Companion nihil operatur A. 167. Cannot sue one the other in Trespass for their Lands A. 174. C. 228 229. Where two shall be Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common of an Estate tail A. 213 214. Two Joynt-Tenants are disleised by two to one of whom one Joynt-Tenant releaseth the other enters he is Tenant in Common to the Relessee A. 264. One Joynt-Tenant cannot grant to or enfeoff his Companion A. 283. If a Joynt-Tenant and a Tenant in Common may joyn in debt for Rent and make a general Count where one is to have a greater share B. 112. Devise to two to be equally divided if it be an Estate in Common or a Joynt B. 129. C. 9. If one Joynt-Tenant accept a Lease of the Land from his Companion he is estopt to claim by Survivor B. 159. Pleading of Joynt-Tenancy in abatement by Fine or Deed Stat. 34 E. 1. 8. B. 161 162. Joynder en Action Action Plea. Three Tenants in a Praecipe cannot vouch severally A. 116. Two Defendants justifie severally and the Plaintiff says joyntly de injuriis suis propr ' c. and good A. 124. Tenant for life and he in remainder in tail joyn in prescription A. 177. Where two Joynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common shall joyn in one Formedon A. 213 214. In what real Actions who shall joyn or sever A. 293 294 317. In a Writ of Error the like A. 293 294. Who shall joyn in a Writ of Error or in Conspiracy or Attaint A. 317. Three joyn in Action upon the Statute of Hue-and-Cry and adjudged good Quod est mirum A. 12. Covenant to two quolibet eorum both must joyn B. 47. C. 161. If one is obliged to account to three he may do it to any one B. 75 76. Debt upon a Judgment against three cannot be brought against one only B. 220. Two Infants Joynt-Tenants cannot joyn in a Dum fuit infra aetatem C. 255. Ioynture What alienation of a Feme of her Joynture is within the Statute 11 H. 7. 20. A. 261 262. Iourneys Accompts If Error lies for the Heir upon death of his Ancestor by Journeys Accounts Quaere A. 22. Issues joyn One joynt replication de injuriis suis propriis to two justifications adjudged good A. 124. Is called in the Civil Law Lis contestata A. 278. If an Advowson be appendant or in gross A. 323. How it shall be joyned upon pleading Ancient Demesne A. 333. Upon special Bastardy A. 335. Issue in an Inferior Court triable out of their Jurisdiction not triable in the Courts at Westm B. 37. Mis-joyn for that the Plaintiff in Covenant altered a word from the Covenant B. 116. In Replevin upon absque hoc that he took them as Bailiff B. 215. Iudgment Upon the Defendant rendring himself in discharge of his Bail A. 58. The Defendant pleads a frivolous Plea which is found for the Plaintiff Judgment shall be entred as by Nihil dicit Nullo habito respectu c. A. 68. In a Sur cui in vita for part of the Messuage demanded A. 152. In Ejectment Quod quer recuperet possessionem is as good as Termin A. 175. Quod Capiatur well enough although pardoned by Act of Oblivion A. 167 300. Shall not be for the Plaintiff if by the Record it appears the Plaintiff hath no cause of Action or that the Action is brought before the Debt due A. 186 187. B. 99 100. C. 86 87. Entred as of a day past where the Defendant dies while after Verdict the Court takes time to consult of the Law A. 187. In what cases the Judges may give Judgment by sight of an Almanack A. 242. Judgment for the Plaintiff in Trespass although the Defendant died before the Writ of Inquiry returned A. 236. In Forcible Entry for treble Costs and Damages A. 282. Nihil de fine qui a pardonatur not good because the Defendant does not plead the Pardon A. 300 301. In Trespass or Case may be arrested after the first Judgment A. 309. Arrest of Judgment shewed in writing in the Exchequer B. 40. Judgment final upon a Verdict in a Counter-plea in Aid B. 52. Where it shall be reversed in part or in all B. 177 178. Against the Heir where his Plea is found against him is general against all Lands C. 3. Iurisdiction The Spiritual Court hath Jurisdiction where right of Tithes comes in question between two Parsons A. 59. In what Cases the Spiritual Court may have Jurisdiction for Slanders B. 53. If the Court hath not Jurisdiction of the Action all is void but other faults make the proceedings only voidable B. 89. One cannot plead to the Jurisdiction of the Court after Imparlance C. 214 215. Iour in Court dies Iuridicus What things may be done upon day extrajudicial B. 206 207. Iustices and Iudges Whether Justice of Peace in a Vill may be by Prescription A. 106. In what Inferior Courts who are Judges A. 217 228 242 316. B. 34. If a Judge may take
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 27. THe Case was That the Bishop of Exeter leased certain Lands in the County of Devon for years rendring Rent payable in Exeter aforesaid with Clause of Re-entry and the Bishop of Exeter had a Palace in Exeter aforesaid It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the Rent ought to be demanded at the said Palace and not elsewhere And if that the Lessee come to the Common Gate of the said Palace and there tender the Rent it is a good tender without more be the Gate shut or open notwithstanding that the Bishop be within the Palace and that neither he nor any of his Servants be at the Gate for to receive it for the Lessee is not tyed to open the Gate of the Palace if it be shut nor to enter into the Palace if it be open X. Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. COpyhold Land was surrendred to the use of the Wife for life the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband entred in the right of his Wife It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the remainder was executed for a Moyety presently in the Wife and the Husband of that was seised in the right his Wife and the Wife dying first that her Heir should have it 1 Roll. Lane and Pannel's Case But if the Husband had died first his Heir should have had one Moyety XI Joscelin and Sheltons Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 13. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Son of the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant assumed and promised to pay to him 400 Marks in 7 years next ensuing by such portions And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff It was Obiected in Arrest of Iudgment That one of the said 7 years was not incurred at the time of the Action brought c. and that appeared upon the Declaration so as the Plaintiff had not cause of Action for the whole Mony promised And for that cause the Writ was abated by the Court by award although it was after Verdict See Br. Title Action upon the Case 108. XII 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. IN an Assise against 4. they were at Issue upon Nul Tenant del Franktenement nosme en le brief And it was found by the Assise That two of them were Disseisors and two Tenants And after Verdict and before Iudgment one of those who were found Tenants died And that was moved in Arrest of Iudgment But it was not allowed of by the Court Because the parties had not day in Court to plead it But it was said That after Iudgment given a Writ of Error lieth In the Time of Queen Elizabeth XIII Canons Case 1 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon an Evidence to a Iury in the Common-Pleas 1 Roll. 839. Vpon an Issue there this Deed was given in Evidence viz. Sciant praesentes futuri Quod Ego Richardus Canon filius haeres Richandi Canon Dedi Concessi hac praesenti carta mea Confirmavi Willielmo Compton Militi Omnia Terr Tenementa c. ad usum mei praed Richardi Joannae uxoris meae pro termino vitae absque impetitione Vasti ac etiam rectorum haered mei praefat Richardi assignatorum meorum post decessum mei praefat Richardi Joannae uxoris meae Et si contingat me praefat Richardum obire sine exitu de Corpore meo procreato Tunc Volo quod omnia dict Terr Tenementa remaneant Tho. fratri meo rectis haeredibus de Corpore suo procreatis haeredib assignat eorum And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That a good Estate tail was by that Deed limited to the said Richard in use after the death of his Wife XIV Holt and Ropers Case 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Holt against Roper the Case was J. Abbot of W. Leased to T.M. Knight a Close of Land in B. for 44 years Post 242. 243. who thereof possessed was attainted of misprision of Treason and so forfeited to the King who seised the same The Abbot and his Covent surrendred 31 H. 8. the King Leased the same to Roper for 21 years and died King Ed. 6th in the fourth year of his Reign Leased the same to one Philips To have and to hold after the Term to T.M. ended for 21 years Roper surrendred to Queen Mary who Leased the same again to Roper for 30 years In this Case It was adjudged That the Lease made to Phillips was utterly void for that the King was deceived in his Grant For the Lease made to F.M. was long time before determined by extinguishment in the Person of the King who had it by forfeiture upon the Attainder of T.M. and the Statute of 1 E. 6. Cap. 8. shall not help that Lease notwithstanding the Non-recital or Mis-recital of Leases made before For here is not matter of recital but matter of Estate and Interest which is not well limited for the Commencement of it i. the Lease to Phillips For there is not any certainty of the Commencement of it For that Lease cannot begin after the Surrender of Roper for the words of the Limitation of the beginning of it cannot serve to such Construction XV. 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Term for years is devised to A. The Executors of the Devisor entred into the Land devised to the use of the Devisee It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a sufficient possession to the Devisee XVI 3 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TWo Coparceners were of a Reversion the one of them granted his Interest in it by Fine to another It was holden in that Case That the Conusee should have a Quid juris clamat for a Moyety of the said Reversion XVII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor mortgaged his Reversion in Fee to the Lessee for years and at the day of Mortgage for payment of the Mony he paid the Mony It was holden in this Case That the Lease for years was not revived but utterly extinct XVIII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. J.N. Cestuy que use in tail 14 H. 8. by Indenture between him on the one part and J.S. of the other part In Consideration of a Marriage between his Son and Heir apparent and Joan Daughter of the said J.S. to be had Covenanted with the said J.S. That neither he nor any of the Feoffees seised to his use have made or hereafter shall make any Estate Release Grant of Rent levy any Fine or do any other Incumbrance whatsoever of any of his Mannors Lands c. But that all the said Mannors c. shall immediately descend or remain to his said Son and the Heirs
See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
Whereupon Vaughan asked him Wherefore he paid the Rent To whom the Lord Windsor answered That he paid the same during the lives of the Feoffees but after their deaths he paid nothing but notwithstanding that payment that the Feesimple remained in him and that his Counsel advised him to pay the Rent to the Heirs of Lewknor who was the Wife of the said Vaughan And Catline said That if a Fine be levied upon a Release in a Scire facias against the Conusor he shall not plead that the Conusor had not any thing in the Land at time of the Fine levied And he said further That if a Disseisor be and the Disseisee levieth a Fine upon a Release that thereby his Right is gone And Note That as to the principal Case Southcote was of Opinion That the Fee was not gained by the Fine levied by a stranger to him who had the Vse before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and that if no Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor at the time of the Lease made by him that the Lease could not be good nor the Action maintainable And because the Court was divided in Opinions in both Points Catline commanded the Iury to find a Special Verdict LXII Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte That it was said by the whole Court That if a Man delivereth Mony to another Man to buy Cattel or to Merchandise with although that the Mony be sealed up in a Bag yet the property of the Mony is to the Bailee and the Bailor cannot have an Action for the Mony but only an Accompt against the Bailee although that he never buyeth the Cattel or other things for the Auditors upon the Accompt shall allow him the sum and such other allowances as they shall think fit And that a stranger takes away the Mony after the death of the Bailee or in his life-time the Bailor shall not have an Action against the stranger but the Executors of the Bailee or the Bailee himself during his life And yet if the Bailee dieth no Action of Accompt lieth against his Executors because the Testator had the property of the Monies And therefore if he who takes the Mony from the Bailee promiseth the Bailor to pay him the like sum of Mony as the Bailee had received of him in his life and as should be truly proved by the Bailor there upon that Promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie against him who took away the Mony as Catline said In an Action upon the Case brought by the Master of the Rolls and another who supposed that they delivered 100 l. to one Moore and that he is dead and that the Mony came unto the hands of the Defendant and that thereupon he promised to pay the like sum which might be proved that Moore had of the Plaintiffs It was holden That the Action upon the Case did not lie Southcote Iustice said That although the property of the Mony be changed as before and that no Accompt lieth against a stranger Yet when he hath the Mony and for that cause promiseth to pay it as before it is reason that an Action upon the Case should lie upon his promise although the Law will not charge him nor the Executors upon an Accompt LXIII The Lord Cromwells Case Mich. 15 Eliz. Dyer 321 322. 2 Roll. 560 561. JEffery recited That a Replevin was brought by Franklin The Defendants made Conusans as Bailiffs of the Lord Cromwell because that the said Lord was seised of the Mannor of North-Elmes and that the Custom of the said Mannor is That the Homagers have used to make By-Laws when necessity shall be within the same Mannor and upon a pain and forfeiture and that the Lord of the Mannor for the time being might distrain in the Land of any for the Forfeiture And further saith That in Anno 6 of Ed. the 6th the Homage then whereof Franklin the Plaintiff was one made By-Law That none should put his Sheep to feed in the Pasture or Lands of the Lord upon a pain c. And that the said Franklin in the 13th year of the Reign of the Lady the Queen that now is had put his Sheep into the Pasture and Lands of the Lord to feed and for that they avow the taking in the right of the Lord Cromwell for not payment of the said Forfeiture And Jefferies of Council with the Plaintiff said That the Avowry nor the Conusans were not good For the Custom is as they themselves have shewed That the By-Law shall be made when necessity requireth and without necessity a By-Law cannot be And it is not alledged here That there was a necessity at the time of this By-Law made and then if there be no necessity they cannot make the By-Law Also it is not alledged that there were any Sheep there And when a Custom is pleaded it shall be pleaded stricti juris And at the Common Law you may see divers Cases That when a Man is to have one thing for the cause of another that he must alledge the thing for which he must have it As in 9 H. 6. Where an Abbot had granted to one That he should have Common wheresoever the Cattel of the Abbot should go there if the Commoner will justifie or make Avowry for his Common he must aver that the Beasts of the Abbot went then in such a place Field or Pasture for if they did not go there at the time that he justifieth or avoweth his Iustification or Avowry shall not be good And there it was said by Babbington Chief Iustice That if a Man grants Common whensoever his Cattel shall go in such a Pasture If the Grantor doth never put his Cattel into the Pasture the Grantee shall not have Common there and therefore he must say That he put his Beasts into the Pasture And in 15 H. 7. in the Case of an Annuity granted until he be promoted to a Benefice in a Writ of Annuity brought he must say That he is not promoted c. And if an Obligation be made to you to you my Lord for Mony when J.S. shall return from Rome you shall not have an Action upon the Bond for not payment of the Mony without alledging that J.S. is retorned See 33 H. 6. Hillary 's Case And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum If a Man had made a Feoffment to hold by Fealty and the Guarding of his Castle In an Avowry for the Castle Guard that there was then War and so cause of necessity for in time of Peace he shall not be bound to Guard it And so it appeareth 34 H. 8. Where a Feoffment was made before the Statute to hold by Fealty and every year to marry a poor Maiden within the Mannor if he doth avow for not marriage he ought to alledge that there was a poor Maid that year within the Mannor So if the Tenure be to repair a Bridge that is for the Common wealth and he and all others
are to have advantage of it yet the Lord shall not avow for not repairing of it without alledging that the Bridge was in decay And so when the Tenure is to Cover his Hall he shall not Avow without alledging that his Hall needed Reparations And so in the principal Case here he ought to alledge that there was a present necessity for making of the By-Law for it may be that there was not any Sheep within the Mannor when the By-Law was made and then there was no cause that it should be made And in the like manner as it hath been said of the Common Law That certainty ought to be shewed so shall it be by the Statute Laws As if Tenant for life makes default if one prayeth to be received for the default of the Tenant for life he ought to shew that he hath the Reversion and that he bringeth his Action by reason thereof And as it hath been said of the Common Law and Statute Law so it shall be said of Custom As in 44 E. 3 where the Parishioners prescribe to make By-Laws and that they made such an Ordinance That for every Acre of Land or for every Beast every one should pay for the Reparations of the Church c. there it may be said in Avowry that the Church wanted Reparation And so where a Tax and Levy is to make a Wall against the See there if the party will justifie the levying of the Tax or Levy he must say That there was need of it otherwise the same cannot be levied But as to the ability of a person he shall be enabled by Intendment As if an Obligation be made by a Man or a Woman in an Action brought upon the Bond he shall not be compelled to say That the Man was of full age or that the Woman was a single Woman for that shall be intended until the contrary be shewed But by Statute Law if a Man pleads a Grant it shall be otherwise As upon the Statute of 1 R. 3. If he plead a Feoffment or a Grant of Cestuy que Use he must plead That he was of full age out of prison of sound memory and within the 4 Seas And so where a Pardon was made in the time of King Ed. the 14th to all but to those who were with Queen Margaret there if he will take advantage of the Pardon he must plead That he was not with the said Queen And if a Man plead a Feoffment of J.S. at the Common Law it shall be good and if he were within age it shall be shewed on the other side But if a Man pleadeth a Feoffment by Custom and the other saith that the Feoffor was within age and the Plaintiff replyeth That an Enfant by the Custom may make a Feoffment the same is not good but a Departure for he ought to have shewed that at the beginning in his Declaration And in 37 H. 6. Where a Man pleaded a Devise and it was shewed that the Devisor was within age there the Plaintiff need not say that the Custom is That an Enfant may devise for that is a Departure Another matter of the Custom which they have alledged is That they may make By-Laws for the better Ordering and they have not taken averment that this Ordinance was either better or worse and if it be not better then they have no cause to make the By-Law If a Feoffment be made causa Matrimonii praeloquuti it shall not be intended that the Feoffment was for any other cause than Marriage And if a Woman brings a Writ of Dower and the Defendant pleads a Lease for life made by the Husband it shall not be intended that that Lease was in allowance of her Dower according to the Statute if it be not expresly shewed And so If Cestuy que Use in tail makes a Lease for life it shall not be intended that Cestuy que Vie is alive unless a special Averment be taken That he is yet alive And so here it doth not appear that this is the better Order nor that the Lands are several or lie in Common so as by no means or Circumstance it can appear if it be the better or not Another cause wherefore the pleading is not sufficient is Because he saith Vpon a pain of Forfeiture to the Lord for the time being and he hath not alledged in fact that the Lord Cromwell who was Lord of the Mannor in Anno 6 E. 6. was Lord in the 13th year of the Reign of the Queen that now is and without shewing that shall not be intended As in 7 H. 7. A Man pleads a Feoffment and that J.S. was seised and did enfeoffe him that is not good but he ought to plead that he being so seised made the Feoffment for it shall not be intended that his seisin continued until the time of the Feoffment without shewing of it And so where a Man pleads That J.S. was seised of a Reversion granted it he ought to plead And that he being so seised granted it And so where an Attornment is pleaded for if he was not seised at the time of the Attornment the Attornment was not good And so where a Man will plead a Surrender he shall shew that he who Surrendreth and he to whom a Surrender is made were seised Quaere If the one or the other were not seised one of the Term and the other of the Reversion whether the Surrender be not good And 31 H. 6. If a Man will plead a Lease by Feoffees to use he shall say And that so seised they made the Lease And see 6 7 10 11 H. 7. Where Cestuy que Use makes a Feoffment averment shall be taken that at the time of the Lease that the Feoffees were seised to the use of the Lessor And because that here it is not shewed nor alledged that the Lord Cromwell is now Lord of the Mannor it shall not be so intended Also for divers other causes I conceive that the Avowry is insufficient For he hath shewed that a By-Law was made but doth not shew when it was made nor for what time it was to continue And it is not shewed Whether the same were made for the better ordering of the Lands which the Lord held joyntly or in common with others or which he held in his own Right alone And as to the Prescription I conceive that the same is not good because it is against reason and not ex rationabili causa For if one Man keeps the Law and another Man breaks the Law yet according as they have alledged this Custom to be he may be distrained who hath not offended and his Cattel taken for the Offence done by the Cattel of another Man and it is against reason that any one should be punished for the default or offence of another But the Custom of Borough English is good and so is the Custom of Gavelkind because that every Son is as good a Gentleman as the eldest and therefore those
35. that he shall enjoy it against all persons but only against all persons who have Title and not against those who have not any Title because against them he may have his remedy And if a Man makes a Feoffment of his Lands with Warranty and covenants that it is discharged of all Rents 1 Roll. 434. 1 Inst 389. a. 1 Len. 29. there it shall not extend to Rent Services which are incident to the Lands of Common Right In 3 H. 7. 4. the Case was The Condition of an Obligation was That the Obligor should make Appropriation of the Church of Dale such a day to such a House at his Costs and Charges discharged of Incumbrances Roll. Tit. Conditions there although there was a Pension granted thereout to another it was holden That the Obligee was not bounden to discharge it of that Pension No more than if a Man be bounden to make a Feoffment of his Land there although that he charge the Land yet he shall not forfeit his Bond But if it were that he should make a Feoffment of his Land discharged c. it is otherwise but yet he shall not be bounden to discharge it of such things with which it is charged by the Law. Barham The words are precisely That he shall enjoy it without interruption of any person so as be he interrupted by one that hath Title or no Title the Plaintiff hath cause of Action Manwood What if the words were That he should enjoy it without Suit in Law Meade That shall be intended of a lawful Suit And in the principal case although the Contract be by words yet it is upon a good Consideration that is to say Of a Fine and Income and upon the payment of the Rent And therefore as Dyer said When Catesby the Son leased the Lands to Mountford the now Plaintiff and it appeared that his Father or a stranger made claim to it and thereupon he made the promise as before shall it be intended that he should hold and enjoy the Lands peaceably without interruption of them only who had Title And that he should not have his Remedy against the Defendant upon his promise if a stranger who had not Title did interrupt him Truly he shall have his remedy against him As if the Son had promised that he should enjoy it against his Father or else that in truth if it were the Land of the Father shall it not be intended that the Son did presume that his Father should not interrupt his Lessee And that he would so deal with his Father that he should not interrupt him and it may be that upon the presumption of the good will of his Father or that he had treated with him or compounded with him that for these or the like causes the Son made the promise aforesaid And if the Father had not any Right or Title to the Land should not the Lessee have his Action against the Defendant if the Father did interrupt him for this unlawful Interruption Truly Yes For by the words it is to be supposed That the Son would so deal with his Father that the Lessee should enjoy and hold the Lands without any manner of interruption Mounson You have well tasted the Opinion of the Court upon this matter before and now you hear our Opinions again Manwood As I said the other day Cannot an Hostler take upon him that the Goods of his Guests which are within his Inn shall be safe and charge himself further therewith than he is chargeable by the Custom of the Realm and to be chargeable against every one that taketh them away Truly I conceive he may Harper The common making of Assurance is That he shall enjoy them without any lawful Interruption 1 Roll. 429. And if the Law upon the general words of Enjoying without Interruption should be intended but of lawful Interruptions It were in vain to have this word Lawful in the Deed c. LXV Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. AN Action of Debt was brought against one upon an Obligation It was upon an Apprentice Bond The Condition of which was That if such a one did become the Apprentice of the Obligee and transport his Merchandises beyond the Seas and make a Retorn of them and maketh an Accompt unto the Obligee and payeth the Monies upon his Accompt within a certain time that then c. And afterwards the Obligee doth release by Deed to the Servant the Apprentice and not to the Obligor And in Debt brought against the Obligor he pleaded the Release And it was said by the Lord Dyer and by the whole Court That by the Release to the Servant the Obligation was saved if the Release were made before any forfeiture or that the Servant or Apprentice had broken any of the Conditions or any point according to the Covenants but if it was made after any of them was broken then such a Release to the Servant did not dispence with the Obligation which was made by the stranger because an Obligation once forfeited cannot be saved by any Act or Release made or done to a stranger LXVI Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit brought by the Patron against the Archbishop of York and the Incumbent Dyer 327. who was in by the Collation of the Archbishop after the death of the Incumbent of the Patron It was said by the Lord Dyer That of an Avoydance by Resignation or Deprivation the Patron shall have 6 months time after notice thereof given unto him to present his Clerk because it may be done secretly in the Chamber of the Ordinary and therefore in such case the Law is That the Bishop is to give notice of it to the Patron before he be bound to that knowledge of such a Presentment as it appeareth by the Case in 1 H. 7. 4. And Lowe the Prothonotary said That so is the Roll of the same year where the Issue was Whether the Patron had 6 months after the notice And then the Lord Dyer said to the Prothonotary Shew me the Roll at another day that I may compare it with my Book But if the Church become void by death of the Incumbent there the Patron is to take notice of it at his peril without any other notice thereof to be given him by the Ordinary And he said That if the Patron doth present his Clerk a Week before the 6 months be ended and the Ordinary doth refuse the Clerk for Inability because he is unlearned and then the six months pass before he presenteth another after the six months after the death of the Incumbent in such case the Bishop shall have the Collation of the Clerk because it was the folly of the Patron that he did not present his Clerk before so as the Ordinary might examine him and that thereupon if he be found to be unable that he might present another Clerk to the Ordinary within convenient time and for that cause is the 6
him any other surety for his Debt he is contented so to do And John Stampe offered to the said P. the said B. and C. and he accepted the same and at the request of the said John Stampe granted his Interest to them 2 Feb. 22 Eliz. P. having notice of the Grant before made to the said G. Vpon which G. enformed against P. upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. It was holden in this Case by Periam and Meade Iustice That P. was not within the penalty of the Statute For P. granted his Interest to B. and C. at the suit and at the request of John Stampe who was the Mortgager for assurance of his Debt which he ought to them And therefore it shall not be intended that that Grant was made for any maintenance or for any unlawful cause against the Statute And also John Stampe who granted unto P. had possession and received the Issues and Profits of the said Lands for a whole year before the Grant notwithstanding that he was not in possession by a whole year next before the day of the date of the Grant. Godb. 450. As if a Man be in possession or hath received the Issues and Profits for a whole year and afterwards a stranger enters upon him and hath the possession for the space of a Quarter of a year or half a year yet he who was in possession by a year before may grant his Interest without danger of the Statute c. CXX Pasch 24 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte Per totam Curiam 2 Len. 35. A man made his Will in this manner scil I Will and Bequeath my Land to A. And the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will Yet the Devise is good enough by Averment of the name of the Devisor And for proof that the same is his Will If one lying in extremis having an intent to devise his Lands by Word makes such devise but doth not command the same to be put in writing but another without the knowledge or Commandment of the Devisor putteth it in writing in the life-time of the Devisor the same is a good Devise For it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced into writing during the life of the Devisor CXXI Pepy's Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by F. and his Wife against Pepy and declared That the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded That the said Feoffment was to the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. absque hoc that it was to the uses as in the Count Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found by Verdict That the said Feoffment was to the uses contained in the Count but further found That the Estate of the Defendant by the Limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity of Waste scil without Impeachment of Waste It was moved If upon that Verdict The Plaintiff should have Iudgment Anderson and Rhodes Iustices conceived That he should for that the matter in Issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Waste is a Forreign matter not within the Charge of the Iury and therefore the finding of the same is but matter of surplusage As if I plead a Feoffment of J. S. to which the other pleads That he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a Conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the Condition for it was not in Issue and no advantage shall be ever had of such a Liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unque seisi que Dower c. The Tenant pleaded That before the Coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised and gave the Land whereof Dower is demanded to the Husband of the Demandant in tail who made a Feoffment A stranger took the Demandant to Wife took back an Estate in Fee and died seised having Issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is nâ—t Dowable de jure yet forasmuch as the parties were at Issue upon a point certain no forrein nor strange matter not in Question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in Bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower See 38 Ass 27. 47 E. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat upon the default of the Tenant came one and shewed How that the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the Reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant counterpleaded the Resceit Dicendo That the Tenant had Fee c. Vpon which Issue was taken And it was found That neither the Tenant nor he who prayed to be received had any thing in the Land. And in that Case The Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the Verdict For they were at Issue upon a point certain scil whether the Tenant was seised in Fee For it is confessed of the one side and of the other that he had an Estate for life and of that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of that And so it is found against the Demandant by which the Resceit was granted See 7 H. 6. 20. The parties were at Issue upon a Dying seised which is found by Verdict but the Iury find further That the other party made continual Claim The said continual Claim shall not be respected in point of Iudgment because it was not pleaded in Avoidance of the Disceit c. Windham Iustice to the contrary because it appeareth to us upon the Verdict That the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue the Plaintiff declares upon a Baylment by his own hands The Defendant pleads Ne Detinue pas the Iury find the Detinue but upon Baylment by another hand In that case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Anderson Rhodes and Periam conceived That in the principal Case Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For in no case the party shall have advantage of that liberty of impunity of Waste if he doth not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue and if they do It is but matter of surplusage and to no purpose and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff See the Number Roll Pasch 25 Eliz. Rot. 602. CXXII Skipwith's Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass It was found by a special Verdict Godbolt 14 143. Co. of Copy-holds 94. That the Lands were Copy-hold Lands That the Custom of the Mannor was That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
Case 18 Eliz. Plow Com. 485 486. Where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were not in the King without Office in the life of the person attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford 54 55. acc 3. He conceived That this Interest which came to the King by this Attainder was but a Chattel and then it is released by the Pardon And so he conceived If it be a Freehold For the words of the General Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and Release all manner of Treasons c. And all other things causes c. and here forfeitures are pardoned And also this word Things is a transcendent c. And although it be a general word yet by the direction of the General Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been especially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the same extends to Inheritances for any Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs And the third branch doth concern only Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the former is by the words Release and Acquit See Br. Charter of Pardon 71. 33 H. 8. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found in that case by Pardons of all Intrusions the Offence is pardoned but not the Issues and Profits But by the Pardon aforesaid all is pardoned And here in our Case the Office is void For the Statute makes all Precepts Conditions void c. being awarded upon such Forfeitures See also in the second Branch Vexed and inquieted in Body Good Lands c. And see also amongst the Exceptions That persons standing endicted of wilful Murder and forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any Offence committed by such person By which he conceived That if that Exception had not been the Land of such a person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited As to the Traverse he conceived That in as much as the Office is true our plea is a Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of persons and in the day of the Feoffment and every Circumstance in the Kings Case is to be traversed and our plea in substance doth confess and avoid the Office. Although the King here be entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records is discharged by another Record i. e. the Pardon and then there is but one Record remaining scil the Office and therefore our Traverse doth lie And he conceived That at the Common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office That the Lessee of the King had done Waste or cessed for two years and there it is said That the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Office Therefore traverse was at the Common Law where the King was entituled by single matter of Record So upon an Office finding an Alienation without Licence Traverse was by the Common Law. See Traverse in such Case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse 54. Petition is by the Common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in the Case of Goods was at the Common Law but Traverse for Lands found by Office by 34 E. 3. Cap. 14. therefore the remedy was by Petition See now Cook 4. Part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the Common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases when by the Office the Land is not in the Kings hands nor the King by that is in possession but only by the Office and entituled to the Action and cannot make seisure without suit there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such an Action to which he is entituled the party may appear unto the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the Common-Law CCXXXVII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Tho. Bacon and Sir Tho. Heydon to shew cause wherefore Whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Patent to be Vice Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and annulled And so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias It was moved by Cook That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patent did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here of the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life may grant Offices which shall be in force after their death And because the same matter is determinable at the Common Law he prayed a Prohibition For in the Admiralty they would judge according to the Civil Law The Court gave day to the other side to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded CCXXXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 302. Ante 150. Post 230. ACcompt was brought by Harris against Baker and damages were given by the Iury It was moved to the Court That damages ought not to be given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered of by way of Arrearges But see the Case Hill. 29 Eliz. in C. B. betwixt Collet and Andrews And yet 10 H. 6. 18. in Accompt the Plaintiff Counted to his damage but did not recover damages 2 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall given Quoddam incrementum to the Arrearages Cook said That it had been adjudged That the Plaintiff should recover Damages in an Accompt ratione Implicationis non Detentionis CCXXXIX Long 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden in this Case If a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant and Livery is made in the Demesnes but no Attornment that in such case the Advowson shall pass but none of the Services CCXL Barns Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BArns brought an Action of Trespass for taking of his sack of Corn The Defendants justified in the behalf of the Town of Lawson in the County of Cornwell because That King Phil. and Queen Mary granted to them of the said Town a Market to be holden within the said Town and that the Plaintiff came to the said Town with a sack of Corn and the Vendor would not pay Toll for which cause they took the said sack of Corn. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vpon which Error was brought and assigned for Error because that the Defendant pleads the Letters Patents with the date of the place year and day without saying Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat For it was holden that
the Plaintiffs and of the cause of it upon which the Plaintiffs did demur in Law. It was argued by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Bishop but to little purpose therefore I will report but certain passages of his Argument He conceived That that general Pleading of Schismaticus inveteratus was good enough as if the Bishop certifieth Bastardy It is sufficient to say Bastardus sive Spurius without other Circumstances as to say On the body of such a Woman begotten Lollard derivatur à Lollio i. e. Anglice Tares Sampson was Dean of Christ Church in Oxford and was convented before the Ordinary for Schism because he would not use a Surplice and for that he was condemned for a Schismatick and deprived of his Deanery in the time of the Queen that now is Shuttleworth Serjeant for the Plaintiffs That the Bishop in his Plea ought to have shewed specially how and in what point the Presentee of the Plaintiffs was Schismaticus There are divers manners of Schisms 1. In Doctrine 2. In manners and of each kind there are many c. And therefore for doubt of enveigling the Metropolitan who is to try that Issue the Defendant ought to have shewed the Schism in certain in which the Metropolitan was to examine the Clerk readily See 38 E. 3. 2. the Case of the Countess of Arundel where in a Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleaded That the Presentee was Criminosus Perjurus and shewed the Cause in what and when he was Perjured And although this Issue is to be tryed by the Metropolitan yet it ought to be formally pleaded in the Temporal Court and with certainty As where a Divorce is pleaded It is not sufficient to say That a Divorce was had but the party ought to shew for what cause and before what Iudge the Divorce was had which see 18 E. 4. 29. where the Divorce is specially pleaded for cause of Consanguinity for by one Divorce the Issues are bastardized by others not See as to the Pleading of a Divorce 11 H. 7. 9. Profession although it be a Spiritual thing yet the general Pleading of it is not good but he who pleads it ought to shew of what Order and under whose Obedience 40 E. 3. 37. which see the Book of Entries 444. Intravit Religionem viz. in Domo Carmelitarum de London ibi fuit professus sub Obedientia R. Prioris Domus illius So Deprivation shall not be generally pleaded which see Book of Entries 458. Ecclesia vacavit per Privationem c. per J.S. Legum Doctor Delegat c. so of Resignation 7 E. 4. 16. Resignavit in manus I.L. Bishop of London Ordinary of the said place Now It is to see If by this general Demurrer the matter in Fact be confessed scil That the Presentee was Schismaticus inveteratus and as to that the Rule is That all matters in Fait which are well and duly pleaded by a general Demurrer be confessed but that which is not well alledged by no Demurrer shall be holden confessed Which Learning see in the Commentaries in Partridge and Stranges Case And here for as much as Scismaticus is not not well pleaded for the cause aforesaid it shall not be holden confessed Now It is to see If upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. this defect be helped and he conceived it was not for here the defect is in matter and not in form As if in Trespass of his Close breaking the Defendant justifies by a Lease for years and doth not shew the place where the Lease was made and the Plaintiff demurrs generally upon it the said defect is not helped by the said Statute for that it is Matter So in a Formedon in Discender The Defendant pleads a Warranty with Assets without shewing the place where the Assets is and the Demandant demurrs upon it generally the same defect is not helped by the said Statute See a good Case adjudged upon the Statute Mich. 28 29 Eliz. between Henly and Broad Periam and Windham Iustices conceived That the Plea of the Bishop is not good because it is not shewed in what point the Presentee was Schismaticus for by this genral Pleading if it should be allowed the Metropolitan to whom the Tryal of the Cause belongeth shall be driven to peruse all Schisms in the Examination of the Presentee which is a thing infinite and inconvenient Rhodes and the Lord Anderson to the Contrary And Rhodes vouched an Old Book 30 E. 1. out of a written Book of the Lord Catline In a Quare non admisit the Defendant pleaded That the Clerk presented was Schismaticus Adulter and the Court commanded that he hold himself to one of them for which he said Adulter so as the Court did not mislike the Plea for the generality but for the doubleness And by Anderson Our Case is not like the Cases put by Shuttleworth for they concern things tryable by our Law in which Case to have convenient tryal all matters issuable ought to be specially alledged but here the Case is otherwise and no peril of Tryal And by the said Statute of 27 Eliz. we ought to judge according to the right of the Cause and matter in Law. See this Case adjudged upon a Writ of Error brought in the Kings Bench. Hill. 32 Eliz. in Cook 5 Part 57. Specot's Case CCLII Estrigge and Owles's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case by Estrigge against Owles It was holden by the Iustices Ante 73. That forbearance per paululum tempus is a good Consideration Then it was moved That in the Action the Request was not sufficiently laid in respect of the place and time And Cook said That the difference had always been agreed That where the promise is to do a Collateral thing upon Request there in the Declaration the place and the time ought to be certainly set down As it was holden in the Case of Alderman Pulison where he promised to give a Cun of Wine upon request Ante 73. in such case the request is traversable and therefore it ought to be certainly shewed for the request is parcel of the Issue But if such Action be brought and the Plaintiff declares upon an Indebitatus then if the Plaintiff prove the Debt it is not material to prove the promise for every Contract executory implyes a promise and in such case the request is not traversable And the truth of the Case was That one Tickil was endebted to the Plaintiff in 30 l. and died Intestate B. his Wife took Letters of Administration and took to Husband the Defendant And he for the Consideration aforesaid and that the Plaintiff would forbear his Debt for a little time promised to pay it And further declared That he had forborn c. from such a day until such a day but yet the Defendant would not pay it licet saepius requisitus And upon this Declaration the Plaintiff had Iudgment And now a Writ of Error was brought
and it was assigned for Error because that in the Declaration it is alledged That the Wife Administred the Goods of the Intestate and did not shew that she was Administratrix c. and took Letters of Administration 2. It is not alledged That the Wife had Goods of the Testator at the time of the promise for otherwise she shall not be bound For it is but Nudum pactum for Executors or Administrators not having Assets shall not be charged And it was holden here That Request is not necessary for the debt was before the promise so as the Request is not any cause of the Action CCLIII Matthews's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King Bench. NOte That a Bill of Perjury upon the Statute of 5 Eliz. was sued by the Queen and the party because that the Defendant being one of the Homage c. did present with the rest of the Homagers That the Plaintiff had cut down certain Trees c. Whereas in truth he had not cut down any And it was holden by all the Iustices That for this matter the Bill did not lie upon this Statute For this branch of the Statute is to be intended of Perjury in Depositions only And by Tanfield A Bill doth not lie upon the Statute upon Perjury committed in an Answer to a Bill in Chancery See 41 Eliz. Flower 's Case CCLIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Co. Rep. Gatewards Case IN a Replevin The Defendant avowed for Damage Feasant The Plaintiff in bar of the Avowry shewed That every Inhabitant in every Messuage in the said Town had used to have Common in the place where c. Glanvile argued That the prescription was not good for want of Capacity in the party who pretends Interest for it is not certain but applyed to a Multitude and he put divers Cases in proof of it 22 H. 6. 21 H. 7. 1. Mar. Dyer 100. The King grants a Rent probis hominibus of Islington the same is void for they are not capable Harris I conceive That the Prescription is good And he granted That a confused Multitude cannot prescribe in a matter of Interest but in an Easement or discharge As in a Way to the Church and that by reason of Custom in the Land and not in the persons See 7 E. 4. 26. Where it is pleaded That all the Inhabitants within such a Town time out of mind c. have used to have Common there c. And for a Township to have a Way to the Church And good by Danby And by Littleton it ought to be pleaded by way of usage And 18 E. 4. 3. All the Inhabitants of such a Town may well prescribe And he cited Bracton 222 223. Communia quandocunque ex longo usu sive constitutione cum pacifica possessione continue non intermixta ex scientia negligentia patientia Dominor ' ita etiam amitti potest per negligentiam non usum And he vouched Britton fol. 144. Common is obtained by long sufferance and also it may be lost by long negligence c. CCLV. Pye and Grunway's Case Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Trespass brought by Pye against Grunway and one B. The Plaintiff declared against Grunway only who pleaded not guilty And it was found for the Plaintiff And in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That the Plaintiff in declaring against one only had falsified his own Writ To that it was said That at the uttermost it is but a discontinuance so but matter of form and so relieved by the Statute of 18 Eliz. But it was said by the Court that it may be That B. was outlawed at the Plaintiffs suit and then the proceedings is determined as against him And the Court demanded of the Clerks If the use of the Court be not so in such case to declare That Grunway simul cum B. utlagat ad sectam Querentis did the Trespass Who answered Not in this Action but in an Action of Debt it is otherwise And afterwards notwithstanding that Exception Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLVI. Thorp and Wingfield's Case Trim. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN Waste the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease for years generally and the truth of the Case was That the Plaintiff had made a Lease for years to one A. which Lease being in force for two years he Leased the same Lands for years as he hath declared to begin presently and the Waste which is assigned in the Declaration was done during the first Lease And now If the Defendant upon this matter might plead No waste done was the Question And it was said by the Court That such a plea should be perilous for the Defendant for it shall be found against him and if he pleadeth the special matter aforesaid scil The former Lease in esse at the time of the Waste committed after the expiration of which Lease no Waste was done If the second Lease be not by Indenture it should be a good Plea but if by Indenture then the Plaintiff would estop him by the Indenture to shew that the second Lease hath another beginning than the Indenture purports and then the Waste shall charge the Defendant And although the Plaintiff had not declared upon a Lease by Indenture yet if the Defendant pleaded the special matter aforesaid he by way of Replication shall estop the Defendant to plead any other beginning of the Term than the Letter of the Indenture doth purport and the same shall be no Departure for it is matter which strengtheneth the Declaration CCLVII Botham and the Lady Gresham's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Prohibition by Botham and Couper 1 Len. 94. 1 Cro. 71. 1 Len. 128. Post 265. against the Lady Gresham who had impleaded them in the Spiritual Court for Tythe-Hay and made their Suggestion That time out of mind c. they had paid to the Vicar of the said Parish 4 d. for the Tythe of Hay of every Acre It was moved That upon that surmise a Prohibition ought not to be granted for that a Modus Decimandi shall never come in Question But the party ought to have pleaded the same matter in the Spiritual Court scil That the same doth appertain to the Vicar and not to the Parson and then if the Vicar sueth for the Tythe of the Hay the Modus Decimandi will come in Question and although that he hath averred in his surmise that the Tythe-Hay belongeth to the Vicar yet that is not material And afterwards a Consultation was awarded CCLVIII. Rush and Heighgate's Case 30 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Len. 121. Co. 4. Rep. Palmers Case PRocess was awarded out of the Exchequer against Rush for the levying of the sum of 200 l. which he owed to the Queen Vpon which It was found by Office That Rush 22 Junii 22 Eliz. was possessed of Lands for the Term of divers years then and yet to come And the Debt of the Queen began
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt