Baron answered that he should have them of right see Bartues case in Dyer but the Lord Treasurer said that he saw no reason to satisfie himself thereof Doillie against Joiliffe DOillie Plantiff against Joiliffe in an Action upon the case for false imprisonment of the Plantiffs wife the case was that Leonard Lovies was formerly Plantiff in an action in the Common Pleas against Julian Goddard a feme sole and in this action the Plantiff and Defendant were at issue and a venire facias was awarded and before the return thereof the said Julian took to husband Doillie now Plantiff and after upon a special verdict found in the suit judgement was given in the Common Pleas for the said Julian against th◠said Leonard upon which judgement Leonard brought error in the Kings Bench and a scire facias was awarded against Julian by the name of Julian Goddard as a feme sole and she appeared by Attorney as a feme sole and this as the Defendant said in his answer was by the consent of her husband now Plantiff and after judgement was given to reverse the judgement in the Common Pleas and the entrie of that judgement as it was pleaded by the Defendant here was quod praedict Leonard Lovies recuperet c. versus praedict Julianam c. and costs and damages were taxed c. upon which judgement the said Lovies sued a Capias ad satisfaciendum against Julian Goddard and by vertue of that writ the Defendant here the Sheriff or Devon took the said Julian being the Plantiffs wife and imprisoned her until the Plantiff paid 10. l. which was the cost taxed by the Kings Bench for her deliverance upon which imprisonment the husband only hath brought his action against the Defendant being Sheriff Davenport of Grayes Inne argued for the Defendant and first he thought that between the parties to the error and the first action in the Common Pleas there is an estoppel and admittance that the said Julian continued a feme sole for the process in all the proceedings ought to be as it was in the Original and he vouched 18. Assise pla 16. by which book it appears that if a man bring an assise for lands in the Countie of O. and the Tenants plead a Common recovery of the same land in the Common Pleas this doth conclude the partie to say that the lands did lie else where c. also if an original be depending and before the first Capias or process awarded the Defendant intermarrieth and after a capias issueth against her as a feme sole this is well awarded lib. 5. E. 4.16 and also 5. E. 3. fo 9. and 10. also he said that such a thing as is done between the plea and not after the judgement is not material to alter the proceedings in that course it was begun for the same partie against whom judgement is given shall error have against him for whom the judgement is given except she had married after the judgement for then he agreed that the writ of error shall be brought by the husband and wife in case judgement had been given against the wife while she was sole 35. H. 6. fo 31. and 12. Assise pla 41. and it also appears by 18. E. 4. fo 3. if Trespas he brought against a married wife as against a feme sole and she appears as a feme sole and judgement is given and execution accordingly this is good until it be reversed by error and the Sheriff in such case never ought to examine if it be evil or nor no more then if Trespas be brought against A. my servant by the name of B. and A. is taken in execution the Master shall not take benefit of this misnaming admitting that A. should punish the Sheriff for it also he vouched one Shotbolts case 10. and 11. Eliz. Dyer and 15. Eliz. Dyer 318. in the Earl of Kents case which prove that the Sheriff is to be excused for taking me by a false name and if the Iudges admit this false name yet this judicial writ ought not to be examined by the Sheriff and it was adjourned Shoftbey against Waller and Bromley SHoftbey brought an action upon the case against Waller and Bromley and declared that the Defendants conspired that the said Bromley should commence a suit against the Plantiff and that the Plantiff was then worth 5000. l. and that he was then dwelling in Middlesex and that the Defendants knowing thereof maliciously and falsely agreed that the said Bromley should lay his action in London and prosecute it until the Plantiff were outlawed in the said suit to the intent that his goods should be forfeited to the King and after in performance of the agreement aforesaid the Plantiff suggested that he was dwelling in London and laid his action here which was prosecuted until the Plantiff here was outlawed to his damage c. Tanfield chief Baron thought that if the suggestion was by Bromley to make the process into a wrong County it seemed that the Action should lie against him only but in regard it is shewed in the Declaration that the said suggestion was made by him in performance of the precedent agreement that the action lieth against both which the Court granted Godfrey in this action moved in arrest of judgement and that for two causes the action lieth not upon the matter here it appears by the 4. Eliz. Dyer 214. that a man may say his action wherein an outlawry lies in London and then by the Statute of 6. H. 8. cap. 4. proclamation shall issue into the Countie where he dwelleth therefore the suing of him in another Countie is no such act wherefore an action should be brought no more then if before the Statute of W. 2. cap. 12. a man had brought an appeal Maliciosè yet no remedy before the said Statute as appears in the 13. H. 7. in Kellawaies case because it was lawful to bring an appeal and so notwithstanding the said Statute no action did lie against him who brought an appeal if it abated 9. H. 5. cap. 1. also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth remedy for false appeals or judgement in another Countie maliciosè c. by action of the case whereby it appeareth that in such case the Common Law allowed no action also the Statute of the 18. H. 6. provideth another remedy then that Statute and therefore no action lies against us no more then in the case aforesaid at the Common Law Secondly here is no issue joyned if the Defendants be guiltie of the execution of this practice but only if they be guiltie of the agreement and this is found for the Plantiff but clearly such agreement without execution giveth no cause of action and the word Practizatione comprehends only the going about and not the executing of this conspiracy and therefore the issue should have been general if the Defendants be guiltie or not and therefore he prayed judgement might be stayed and he cited Owen
Woods case in Cook lib. 4. Tanfield chief Baron it is true that the issue should be better if it were general not guiltie of the Trespass aforesaid but yet it is good enough in this case for the special words comprehend as much as the words not guiltie of the practice and agreement aforesaid c. and the word Practizatione comprehends aswel the subsequent Acts of execution as the precedent combination and therefore Tantamounts a general issue and it was good by the Court and as to the action Altham Baron conceived that it lieth although it be for a lawful cause for the Law abhoreth fraud and conspiracy as if two conspire to vex me for my land by suit an action lieth F. N. B. yet it is lawful for every man to sue me without title and he vouched 16. Assise and here it is laid that the Defendants indeavoured to make the Plantiff forfeit his goods which are worth 5000. l. and this is reasonable that it should lie and 9. E. 2. Fitz. discents 52. is our case directly upon the matter and therefore it seemeth to me that it lies Tanfield chief Baron said that 9. E. 2. crosseth this case in part and yet he thought that the action lies to which Snig agreed and it seemed the cases of appeal put by Godfrey did lie well enough without aid of the Statute of W. 2. if there be such a conspiracy Tanfield chief Baron accordingly if it be legally thought without cause yet if without conspiracy the action lieth not for it as it appears in Owen Woods case Cook lib. 4. and in all cases where strangers have nothing to do with the suit brought for the conspiracy and yet combine with the Plantiff in the suit an action upon the case lieth for this vexation and judgement was entred for the Plantiff by the Court. An inquisition for the King was returned here and it was found that Fleet-wood the Kings debtor for his office of receiver for the Court of Wards did purchase a certain Term and interest of and in the rectory of Yeading for divers years then to come and that being so possessed he became indebted to the King and that this term is now in the hands of the Lady Edmonds and by colour of this inquisition the land is extended for the Kings debt Harris Serjeant moved that this inquisition is insufficient to extend the land but good to sell a term and he vouched Palmers case Cook lib. 4. to which the Court inclined but it was adjourned If a Bishop becomes indebted to the King for a subsidie and dieth his successors shall not be charged upon the lands of the Bishoprick but the executors of the predecessor or his heir and if they have nothing the King shall lose it as chief Baron Tanfield said which the Court granted upon the motion of Bridgman for the Bishop of Saint Davids Trallops case A Scire facias issued against Trallop the father and Trallop the son to shew cause wherefore they did not pay to the King 1000. l. for the mean profits of certain lands holden by them from his Majesty for which land judgement was given for him in this Court and the mean rates was found by inquisition which returned that the said mean profits came to 1000. l. upon which inquisition this scire facias issued whereupon the Sheriff returned Trallop the father dead and Trallop the son now appeared and pleaded that he took profits but as a servant to his father and by his commandment and rendred an accompt to his father for the said profits and also the judgement for the said land was given against his father and him for default of sufficient pleading and not for the truth of the fact and he shewed the Statute of the 33 H. 8. cap. 39. which as he pretended aided him for his equitie whereupon the King demurred Hitchcock for Trallop seemed that the Statute did aid him by equity and he moved two things the one that if here be such a debt that the Statutes intends to aid it the other if the Defendant hath shewed sufficient matter of equitie within the intent of the Act and he thought that it is such a debt as the Statute will aid for although that here be au uncertainty of the time of the judgement given for the King that being reduced to a certainty by the inquisition after it shall be within the intent of the Statute for id certum est quod certum reddi potest and the words of the Statute are if any judgement be given for any debt or duty c. and here although that there was no certainty unto how much these mean rates extended at the time of the judgement given yet it is clear that it was a duty at the time of the judgement and then it is within the Statute also he said that the words in the proviso of that Statute explain that the intent of the makers of the Act was so for the words are for any thing for which the partie is chargable and the mean rates are a thing for which he is chargable see Cook lib. 7. fo 20. and the Lord Andersons case there fo 22. as to the point of equitie there seem to be two causes First he shewed that he was but a servant to his father and had given an accompt to him Secondly the judgement was given against him upon a point of mispleading Tanfield chief Baron said that the matter in equitie ought to be sufficiently proved and here is nothing but the allegation of the partie and the demurrer of Mr. Attorney for the King and if this be in Law an admittance of the allegation and so a sufficient proof within the Statute it is to be advised upon and for that point the case is but this a scire facias issueth out of this Court to have Execution of a recognizance which within this Act ought by pretence and allegation of the Defendant to be discharged for matter in equitie and the Defendant pleads his matter of equitie and the King supposing this not to be equity within this Statute demurreth in Law whether that demurrer be a sufficient proofe of the allegation within the Statute or not and it was adjourned Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer Doillie and Joiliffs case again Trin. 7. Jac. in the Exchequer CRessey for the Plantiff said that the Plea in Bar is not good because the Defendant justified by force of a Capias ad satisfaciendum and pleads no return thereof and moved that it is not justifiable without returning of the writ but the Court seemed the plea to be good notwithstanding that but if it were a mean process then it ought to be pleaded to be returned see Cook lib. 5. Hoes case fol. 19. according to this diversitie Tanfield chief Baron thought that the Plantiff shall recover for first the writ of error here is not a writ but a commission and therefore false lattin shall not abate it as it hath been
touching the premisses Also peradventure if he will assign the place this may fall out to be in another County then where the Action was brought for so it may be and yet parcell of the premisses and so he may give us cause to demur Also to say cleerely that the Plaintiff had entred c. is not good for it ought to be that the Plaintif also expelled or amoved the Defendant as appears in the book of Entries Tit. Debt or Lease fo 11. or 12. and fo 175. B. also here the Plea is double to say in one close called Well Close and this is matter of substance whereof we may take advantage notwithstanding this general Demurrer And also he saith it is parcell of the tenements mentioned in the Declaration this may be and yet never parcell of the thing whereof the Action is brought for there are other Writs therein comprehended within the pernosme And as to the objection of Serjeant Dodderidge that here is a discontinuance because the Plea is not continued by the Iudge of Nisi prius into this Court here if seemeth that this needs not notwithstanding that it be a collaterall Plea in this Court in Trin. Term at the Assises but it is that the parties aforesaid do attend in Octab. Mich. and the continuing untill the Assises is but with a Nisi prius c. and by expresse words the the Parties have day to attend to hear judgement and at the Assises to try the issue and this is a sufficient continuance and as to that the Iudges of Nisi prius ought upon this Plea to discharge the Iury to that it seemeth that the relinquishing of the issue joyned and the acceptance of this new Plea is a discharge in Law Also the Iudges of Nisi prius have no power to give day in the Court here to the Parties for the Court here is to appoint the day in the book of the other part 37. H. 6. fo 2. is only that the Iudgs of Nisi prius give to the parties their day viz. the ordinary day and not another day and the cases tit Voucher and tit Journ in Fitz. cited of the other part are where the Plea is to be put in another Court as Durham c. where the parties have no day before and there a day ought to be given but that is apparantly different from our case Nichols Serjeant to the contrary admit that the Action had been brought of the Mannor of D. only and the entry had been alledged in parcell as here it is then it had been good see the Book of Entries tit Debt or Lease 11. or 12. accordingly and by the same reasons it seemeth the Action being brought for the ejectment of three Mannors the entry was pleaded to be in one Close parcell of the Tenements and good for the venue shall come from all as well from one Close as from the other Also here the entry is alledged to be in parcell of the Tenements and not of the premisses and so the venue for the tryall ought to be from the three Towns where the odde Acres lye and not from the Mannor also and by a reasonable intendment it may be conceived that the place where c. lyeth in all the three Towns 36. H. 6. fo 17. the Defendant saith that the place where c. is parcell of the Mannor of B. that he intitled himself unto he needs not shew where the Mannor lyeth and yet it shall be intended in the same County and although that in such case it is said to be shewed in certain by the Book in 6. E. 6. Dyer fo 76. yet this doth not prove that it ought to be of necessity and here by the shewing of the Plaintiff he had confest the matter of fact which is an entry into parcell of the Premisses and by consequence he falsified his Writ for if he confesse that he had entred into any parcell thereof whereof he brought his Action he had falsified his Writ cleerely he vouched 21. H. 6. fo 8. and 6. Eliz. Dyer 226. in a Ejectione firme against Nevell and others it is said that by a Demurrer to such a Plea the Plaintiff had confessed the Entry but otherwise it should be if he had imparled see Bowld and Mullinexes case in Dyer fo 14. for the shewing of a place c. and l. 5. E. 4. fo 138. an Executor pleads fully administred and at the Nisi prius he pleads that the Plaintiff recovered part of the Debt in D. after the last continuance and a good Plea although it be not shewed in what County D. is Also it seemeth that day ought to be given in this Plea or otherwise it is a discontinuance for the day given upon the Roll is to hear judgement upon the verdict and this plea is Collateral wherefore c. and he vouched 10. H. 7. fo 27 and 7. E. 3. fo 338. by Herl where a difference was taken when a day in Bank shall be given and when not and he vouched 4. and 5. Eliz. Dyer 218. where Fitz. Iustice gave day in Bank Tanfield chief Baron true it is that if it be in an Assise which commenteth originally before the Iudge of Assise he may give day Nichols also vouched 33. H. 6. and 11. E. 4. fo 13. Hobert Attorney general the demurrer doth not confess the plea when it is insufficient but if upon the demurrer the plea be adjudged sufficient then the fact is confessed for the demurrer only confesseth the matter of the plea conditionally viz. if it be good in the matter of the case in 6. Eliz. Dyer 226. the Plantiffe conceived that the plea there ought not to be pleaded in an ejectment after the last continuance and did not demur for the form and a demurrer doth not confess the plea good although that the matter is true and the Book in 21. H. 6. doth not prove against me for that was of an actual confession but in 37. H. 6. the issue joyned was if he who prayes to be received may plead the entrie of the demandant after the last continuance and the cause of the demurrer there was only if he could plead that plea or not because it appears not if he had any thing in reversion or no and so it seemeth that we might have demurred specially and this had been no confession and therefore the general demurrer shall not prejudice us for the matter of confession Bromley Puisne Baron it seemeth the plea is not good because a place is not assigned in certain in what Town the entrie is divers Towns being alledged it seemeth that it is no discontinuance for there needs no special day to be given but the day of return of the nisi prius for they cannot give any day being delegate only to a special purpose and it seems to me that the demurrer doth not confess the plea of the Defendant but conditionally viz. if the plea fall out to be good for otherwise
the Plantiffe shall be outed to take advantage of a bad plea and so upon the whole matter it seems that judgement shall be given in the ejectione firme for the Plantiffe Altham second Baron to the same purpose there needs no special day to be given by the Iudge of nisi prius although that it be upon a Collateral matter or plea for by the record in this Court a day is given to the Iurors conditionally viz. if the Iustices of nisi prius at the Assises do not come c. but to the parties it is given absolutely fee 6. Assises pla 7. and L. 5. E. 4. fo 2 3 and 4. where there are several cases to this purpose see 9. E. 3.21 H. 6. fo 10. if the Defendant make default at nisi prius a new distress shall issue to the same Iurors to be here in Bank and 3. H. 6. fo 8. and 9. if a man appear and plead he shall never take advantage of any discontinuance Also it seemeth that the plea is not good and to say that the word Tenementorum refers only to the odde acres and not to the Mannor it seemeth that it refers to all but if it shall be taken to refer only to the odde Acres yet this is not good and this is proved by the Book in L. 5. E. 4. fo 110. for a plea to the writ ought to be alwayes certain and this case also answereth that which hath been said that the demurrer confesseth the matter against the Plantiffe for I say if you plead a release in Bar of a debt and shew no place where the release was made this demurrer is no confession of the release except that the cause of the demurrer fall out against me wherefore in respect that the plea is not good and is peremptory to the Defendant as other pleas to the writs are for this cause I conceive Iudgement shall be given for the Plantiffe Snig Baron accordingly that the plea is not good for the not shewing of a place certain wherein the entrie was as by the matter of discontinuance it seemeth that the day of nisi prius is all one with the day in Bank and therefore there needs no day to be given and for that the death of any of the parties after the verdict and before the day in Bank shall not stay the judgement the Books which were cited on the other parts are different from our case for there the suit was adjourned into another Court and the Courts in the Country are not as the Courts here and therefore it was necessary that in such cases a day ought to be given for the manner of pleading we ought to give judgement against him who pleads the plea notwithstanding the matter admitted by the Plantiffe wherefore judgement shall be given for the Plantiffe Tanfield chief Baron accordingly the plea whereupon the issue was joyned was for three Mannors and lands in three Towns and entrie is alledged to be in two Closes called c. parcel of the premises in Bar of the Action if the Defendant in liew of not guiltie plead an affirmative plea and at nisi prius he pleads another plea then the entrie ought to be that the Defendant relicta verificatione c. but in our case such an entrie needs not the plea here ought to be more certain then others for two reasons First it is pleaded in abatement of the writ Secondly it is in delay of the Plantiffe and to which no rejoynder can be made as to the plea it seemeth it is not good for by 10. H. 7. fo 16. a quare impedit was brought by an Administrator of a grantee of a next avoidance and shewed that the Bishop of Sarum granted Administration to him the Defendant saith that the intestate had bona notabilia in divers Diocesses and so the Administration void and shewed in what Diocesses the goods were but shewed no place where they were and therefore it was adjudged that the plea was not good because he did not shew a place c. see 2. R. 3. and 5. H. 7. accordingly and this plea shall not be amended by a rejoynder as is 21. H. 7. also to say parcel of the premises this cannot be intended that parcel of three Mannors or of the three Towns in certain and therefore the plea cannot be good because there is no place from whence the venue should come and it is inconvenient that the venue should come from all if the place where c. lies but in one Town for as it appears in Arundels case Cook lib. 6. if a Mannor be alledged to be within a Town the venue shall come from the Town because it is a place more certain as to the general demurrer that the plea aforesaid is lesse sufficient in Law c. in 18. E. 4. it appears that in debt upon an Obligation the Plantiffe doth not shew a place where the Obligation c. and the Defendant confessed the Action yet notwithstanding this fault Iudgement ought to be given against the Defendant but this differeth from our case because here is an express confession and in our case here is not also here needs not to be shewed any special cause of demurrer but advantage may be taken well enough upon the general demurrer but if the demurrer were that the plea amounted to the general issue only there ought to be shewed a special cause or otherwise no advantage to be taken and he cited the agreement of seven Iudges to be at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet this Term in a writ of Error in Dickensons case the case intended was between White and Priest parties in an Action upon Trover and conversion and the Record thereof is in the Kings Bench Trin. 7. Jac. Rot. 843. as to the matter in Law touching the discontinuance for want of a doy given by the Iudge of nisi prius it seemeth there is no discontinuance in this case for there needs not to be any day given as our case is yet in some case the Iudge of nisi prius ought to give day but that shall not be a new day but only the day within contained and that but in special cases viz. if the issue be joyned and at the shewing of the evidence there is a demurrer here the Iudge giveth to the party the day within contained as it appears in 10 H. 8. Rot. 835. and Hill 11. H. 8 accordingly in the Common Pleas but Hill 36. Eliz Rot. 448. upon non-suit at the Assises no day given so if the party confess the Action and so if there be a bill of exceptions yet no day shall be given Hill 38. Eliz. Rot. 331. in the Kings Bench but peradventure it will be said that these Authorities do not match with our case because it is upon a material plea but I say it is all one and therefore in case of a release pleaded after the last continuance this is recorded and yet no day given as appears Hill 4. H. 8.
was in a Formedon in remainder and it was moved now by Serjeant Harris if the partie against whom it was given may sue in the Exchequer Chamber by Bill or petition to the King in the nature of a writ of false judgement for the Reversal of that judgement Tanfield seemed that it is proper so to do for by 13. Rich. 2. if a false judgement be given in a base Court the partie grieved ought first to sue to the Lord of the Mannor by petition to reverse this judgement and here the King being Lord of the Mannor it is very proper to sue here in the Exchequer Chamber by petition for in regard that it concerneth the Kings Mannor the suit ought not to be in the Chancery as in case a Common person were Lord and for that very cause it was dismissed out of the Chancery as Serjeant Harris said and Tanfield said that he was of Councel in Pettishals case in the time of the Lord Bromley where it was debated at large if such a judgement ought to be reversed by petition in the Chancery in case where a Common person was Lord and at last it was decreed that it should be as in that case of Patshal and for the same reason here the King being Lord and therefore day was given till the next Term to shew their errours and Serjeant Harris said that the errors are in effect no others then were in the case 9. Eliz. Dyer fo 262. and in Godmanchesters case and it was adjourned Scot and his wife against Hilliar SCot and his wife Plantiffs against Hilliar for these words spoken of the wife viz. she would have cut her husbands throat and did attempt to do it Hutton Serjeant in arrest of judgement said that these words are not actionable for the will or attempt is not punishable by our Lawe and he vouched Cockains case Cook lib. 4. cited in Eaten and Allens case but by the Court an Action lies for the attempt is a cause for which the husband may be divorced if it were true and it is a very great slander and Baron Snig said that in the same Term a judgement was given in the Kings Bench and was affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error for these words He lay in the high way to rob me and therefore let judgement be entred for the Plan̄tiffe but it was adjudged in the principal case that for the words she would have cut her husbands throat no Action would lie Gooches Case A Coppyholder surrenders into the hands of the Customary Tenants to the use of Anne his Wife and after before any Court the said Coppyholder surrenders the Land into the hands of other Customary Tenants to the use of the said Anne for her life the remainder to Percie in Fee upon condition that he in remainder his Heirs should pay 20. s. per annum at Michaelmas for ever the first payment to commence immediacely after the death of the said Anne viz. at the next feast of St. Michael and this to be paid in the Church Porch or D. to the Church Wardens of D. in the presence of four discreet Parishioners or otherwise that a stranger should re-enter and at the next Court both these surrenders were present and the Steward admitted the said A. according to the second surrender and she dyed and now upon pretence that the rent of 20. s. was not paid by the Heirs of him in remainder the Heir of Gooch who made the surrender had entred and thereupon an Action was brought and upon the evidence the Jury to the County of Bedford now at the Bar These matters were moved by Serjeant Nichols That a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants cannot be Countermanded and therefore the second surrender void and the admittance shall work to such uses as the first surrender was made as in Anne Westwicks Case Cook Lib. 4. And to prove that a surrender into the hands of Customary Tenants is not countermandable he said that it is not countermandable by death nor surrender Cooke lib. 4. in his Coppyhold Cases That a presentment in the Court may be after the death of the surrenderer and the admittance thereupon is good and he compared it to the Case of the delivery of a Deed as an Escroll which may be delivered as his Deed after the death of the Maker as it is in Jennings and Braggs case Cook lib. 3. which was not denyed by the Court Serjeant Dodderidge said that when a surrender is made upon condition that he shall pay a summe of money to a stranger these words make an estate conditionall and give power implyedly to the Heirs of the party who did surrender to re-enter for non-payment and the words which give power to a stranger to re-enter are meerely void neverthelesse the precedent words shall stand and make the estate conditionall Tanfield Littleton saies that such a re-entry is void for a re-entry cannot be limited to a Stranger Nichols Serjeant said that if a surrender be made that he shall pay so much money that this makes the estate conditionall and gives a re-entry to the Heirs of him who did surrender But when it goes further and doth not leave the condition to be carried by the Law in such case all the words should be void because it cannot be according to the intent as in the case of a reservation of rent the Law will carry it to the Reversion but if it be particularly reserved then it will go according to the reservation or otherwise will be void and so here Tanfield Admit that here was a conditionall estate by vertue of the Surrender last made and this condition is also to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be taken strictly yet as it is here he who will take advantage thereof ought to prove a voluntary neglect in the party in the not performance of the Condition and inasmuch as there is no certain time appointed when the payment of this Annuall rent should be made but generally at Michaelmas next after the death of the said Anne thereby in this case the Chuch-wardens ought to notifie the death of the said Anne before the first day of payment by reasonable space or otherwise the condition is not broken and also it is appointed here to be paid in the presence of four discreet Parishioners by the party who should perform the condition yet by intendment he hath no notice who are discreet or who are not especially he being an Infant as in our case he is and therefore although the condition is to be performed to a stranger which generally ought to be performed strictly according to 12. E. 3. Yet this is to be intended only in such cases where the party had certain notice of all circumstances requisite for payment thereof and therefore he directed the Iury that for want of knowledge of such circumstances they should give a Verdict that the condition was not broken And Dodderidge
man prescribe to be discharged of payment of Tithes by reason of payment of another kinde of Tithe that this is not good Marie Reps against Babham MArie Reps by her Gardian was Plantiff against Babham in an action of Trespas the Case was that a feofment was made to the use of husband and wife for their lives and after to the heirs of the body of the wife begotten by the husband and if this was an estate tail general in the wife or an estate in special tail to the husband it was demurred Richardson argued that it was a general estate taile in the wife and that the husband had but for life and he vouched 11. E. 3. Fitz. tit Formedon in proof thereof Henry Yelverton thought it was an estate tail in both and he said that the Case in the 11. E. 3. is not like to this Case for there the Prior cannot take but as Tenant in Common and he vouched of his part 17. E. 2. title where the inheritance is limited no more to the body of the one then of the other there is an estate tail in both out of which Littleton took his Case and Fitz. nat Brevium fol. 193. G. where he puts the very Case in effect 41. E. 3. fol. 24.3 E. 3. fo 90. Rips Case 21. E. 3. fo 41.4 E. 3. fo 145. and 15. Eliz. in the Common Pleas was that a guift was made to husband and wife and to the heirs of the bodie of the husband of the body of the wife begotten and this was holden an estate tail in both if the word husband followeth immediätely the word heir it is an estate tail in that person only but if the word with be interpreted it altereth but the word or interposed maketh no difference no more then if the word husband had immediately followed 19. H. 6.75 Pasch 4. Jac. in the Exchequer Richards against Williams IN an action of Trover and conversion betwixt Richards and Williams for two loads of Barley the Defendant saith that the Dean Arch-Deacon president and Chapter of Landaffe was seised of a Personage in fee and by the said name had leased unto the Defendant to which the Plantiff replied that the Arch-Deacon and Chapter of Landaffe were seised in fee and leased unto him without that that there was any Corporation as Dean Arch-Deacon president and Chapter whereupon the Defendant demurred George Crook argued that the Replication is good and he made two points First that here is a good inducment to a Traverse Secondly that there ought to be a Traverse in the Case to the first he said that if the Defendant intitle himself by one name and the Plantiff by another name here is a good inducement for a Traverse and he cited Croft and Howels Case in Plowden where the Cooks were incorporated by E. 4. by the name of Master and Governous and they made a lease of lands by the name of Master and Wardens and this was holden a void lease and he vouched to this purpose also 21. E. 4. fol. 56. where a Corporation was of Dean and Viccars and a lease was made by them by the name of Dean and Priests and 30. Eliz in the Kings Bench and Windgate Hals Case and Eaten Colledge Case in 3. 4. Ma. Dyer 150.2 that in this Case the Plantiff ought to take a Traverse and he cited 44. Assise pl. 9. 44. E. 3. fo 26. where one pleaded that the Prior of the Hospital of St. c. and the othersaid that the Prior of the house c. and an averment was made that it was known by the one name and by the other or otherwise the plea had not been good without a Traverse also he cited the Case of Raunce and the Dean and Chapter of Chichesters Case in the Kings Bench where Raunce took such an averment or otherwise he ought to have taken a Traverse and he cited the Lord Barleys Case in Plowden and 5. H. 7. and he said that the Plantiff by his Replication alledged other matter in fact then the Defendant did and therefore there ought to be a Traverse 12. E 4. also if a man brings an action by the name of Gardian and the other saith he is Prior this is not good without a Traverse that he is not Gardian 4. E. 4. fo 6.32 H. 6. fo 4.38 E. 3. fo 34. an accompt supposing the Defendant one of the company of M. and it is there said that the Defendant not being sued in the action as one of the company but this is only used for an addition therefore there ought to be no Traverse and after this argument Tanfield chief Baron said that the argument now made touched not the point in this Replication for the point is not if there needeth a Traverse in the cause but what thing is Traversable therein videlicet what is the principal matter alledged for the Defendant and therefore he put this Case Prior and Covent of D. claim an Annuity by prescription the Defendant saith that within time of memory they were incorporated by the name of c. in regard that it is within time of memory Quere what thing is Traversable here that is to say what thing is the principal matter and after at another day Walker to the contrary and first he said that it is not alledged in fact by the Defendant but by implication That there was any such corporation as Dean c. and that which is alledged but by implication ought never to be Traversed and he vouched Dyer 365. 27. H. 8.27 The alledging that the Dean c. is but matter of induement to the Plea in Bar and therefore is not Traversable for the lease supposed to be made by them is the matter of substance and he vouched a Case between Richarson and Sir George Heart 31. Eliz. to be where in an action against the Sheriff for suffering an other to escape who was in Execution at the Plantiffs suit and the Sheriff said that he never arrested him and he vouched also 10. H. 6. fo 13. thirdly he said that the Plantiff doth not Traverse in the same manner as is alledged by the Defendant and therefore the Traverse is not good and he vouched 27. H. 8. fo 26. where in Trespass the Defendant saith that I. S. is seised in fee c. the Plantiff saith that his father was seised in fee without that that he had any thing this is no good Traverse and Thompson thought it no good Traverse it is alledged in fact for the Defendant that such a Corporation made a lease therefore there was such a Corporation and he said that a man may Traverse by a Negative prayer or by a Negative pregnant 9. H. 7. 27. H. 6. where a Trespas was brought by I. and G. his wife the Defendant said there is no such G. his wife and this is good and so in 40. E. 3. fo 36. 37.11 H. 4. fo 10.45 E. 3. fo 6. in a quare
because nothing vested in the Queen nothing can vest in the King as successor for a thing cannot be vested in one as heir or successor which was never vested in the Ancestor and he vouched Bullocks case in 10. Eliz. Dyer 21. Ed. 4. of election also it cannot vest in the King Primarily because he was never partie to the Iudenture of lease and he cited a case to be adjudged accordingly betwixt Founds and 29. Eliz. 11. H. 7. that he who is not partie to the Indenture shall not be primarily bound nor shall primarily take by the same Indenture and it is inconvenient that this should be a good inrolment and where it was said of the other part that a bargain and sale is good enough although it be not inrolled in the life of the parties so that it be inrolled within 6. moneths to that he well agreed for by the bargain and sale an use passeth at the Common Law without help of the Statute and this without inrolment and the Statute of inrolments restraineth it not but that it may pass well enough at this day and so the Statute perfects it so that it be within 6. moneths indifferently and therefore it is good notwithstanding the death of the parties and he concluded with the Book of the 19. Eliz. Dyer fol. and wheras it was said to be resolved contrary in an authoritie not printed he said that he believed the printed Book and vouched also the case cited before in Butlers and Bakers Case Cook lib. 3. to the third point it seemed to him that although the inrolment be good yet that should not avoid the estate by relation for a relation is not good to avoid mean conveyances without an antient right as if the Kings Villein purchase lands the King now hath right and therefore an office found after shall relate to avoid all mean conveyances and he said that relations are not so certain wherefore a man may make a ground for every case hath his particular reason and therefore to some purposes an attornament ought to relate but to other purposes it ought not to relate and therefore an attornament cannot relate to intitle a grantee to rents due between the grant and the attornament and so in this case if the inrolment had been in the life of the Bishop and of the Queen yet it could not have given to her the mean profits between the grant and the inrolment and he vouched a case in Butlers and Bakers case and the 11. H. 7. that a relation shall never be prejudicial to a stranger for his estate lawfully executed and therefore if a feofment be made to a husband and wife and to a third person and after the husband and wife are divorced for a precontract yet they shall take but a Moitie as if they were married also it is a rule that an estate vested cannnot be made Tortious by relation see Butlers and Bakers Case and he vouched a case to be adjudged betwixt Wind gate and Hall in the Kings Bench Mich. 31. 32. Eliz. that if a Statute be acknowledged to a Common person and another Statute to the King by the same Conusor and after the Statute acknowledged to the common person is extended and the Conusee in possession and also the King sues execution of his Statute he shall not avoid the estate lawfully executed in the first Conusee as it was there holden but the Barons said una voce that if such a case should come in question before them they would hold the contrary for the King and for the fourth point viz. if the confirmation were good being made before inrolment of the lease and so upon the matter before any lease in being to which the Counsel of the one part nor of the other were provided to speak Walter said that the confirmation was not good for Littleton saith that a thing or estate which is not in being cannot be confirmed and Tanfield chief Baron said and others also that this was the principal point of the case and the great doubt is of the other part viz. that this is not good and therefore advised them to argue it at another day and Walter said that the confirmation is not good in regard it is not of record nor inrolled and he vouched the 26. of E. 3. fo 20. that the King cannot take notice of any thing without record the next Term upon the first Tuesday it was appointed to be argued again and Doddridge the Kings Serjeant observed foure points First if any inrolment be necessary in the case Secondly admitting that the inrolment be requisite if here be a good inrolment being made after the Kings death Thirdly if the confirmation of the Dean and Chapter be of necessitie to be inrolled Fourthly admit that the confirmation need not to be inrolled and that the lease ought to be inrolled then if this confirmation be good because it was before the inrolment of the lease as to the first he conceived that aswel a Chattel real as a thing personal may vest in the King without Record for it should be inconvenient that Chattels should be inrolled First for the infinitness Secondly for the small value of them in the judgement of Law and he vouched 40. Assises pla 35. of a Legacy devised to the King and 37. H. 6. fo 10. if a Chattel be given to the King there needeth no record and the 28. E. 3. fo 23. the King brings a quare impedit upon a grant of the next presentation without record and yet it was good 21. H. 7. fo 19. an obligation may be granted to the King without record 35. H. 8. Brook prerogative and 33. H. 6. the Baily shall have aid of the King and he vouched also 2. E. 6. Brook prerogative and 35. H. 6. fo 3. Fitz. villinage and Brook prerogative and the 21. H. 7. fo 8. if a man possest of a Term be outlawed this Term is in the King by outlawry without Record to the second point he thought that the inrolment was good after the Queens death for the inrolment ought to relate as it appears by 1. H. 7. fo 28. and this relation disaffirmeth the mean estate and gives also the mean profits and as to the point of relation he vouched Nichols Case Plowden where the entrie of the heir once lawful was made unlawful by relation and he vouched also 14. H. 8. fo 18. in the end of Wheelers Case and by the 4. H. 7. fo 10. a man seised of land is attainted of Treason the King grants this land to A. the person attainted commits a Trespass and is restored by Parliament the Patentee shall never have an action of Trespass because this restitution takes away the cause of action and to prove that the inrolment may be well enough after the Queens death he said that the said case put to be resolved in the 19th of Eliz. Dyer fo 355. concerning the Duke of Somerset was after adjudged contrary to
adjudged in the Exchequer chamber and in this case the scire facias ad audiendum errores and all the writ and this scire facias in our case ought to have been made against the said Julian as against a married woman and the writ of execution which is the warrant to the Sheriff is not in such words as the judgement in the Kings Bench is upon which it is founded viz. that he should take the aforesaid Julian c. but that he take the said Julian Goddard then the Sheriff shall not say in his defence that all the proceeding in the writ of error was against the person and aided himself by entrie in the roll of the Court viz. quod praedict Julianum capiat c. but he ought to rely only upon the writ and if in this case he would save himself then he should have inquired upon the delivery of the writ unto him by Lovies who was that Julian Goddard and if thereupon Lovies had informed him that it was Julian Doillie then the Sheriff should have an action upon the case against Lovies upon this false information viz. if A. prosecute a replevin to replevy his Cattle and thereupon he cause the Sheriff to deliver unto him the Cattle of B. for this here B. hath his remedy against the Sheriff and the Sheriff against A. for this false information also he said that if a fieri facias cometh to make execution of the goods of B. if the Sheriff take others goods in execution a Trespass lieth and therefore to secure himself he ought to impannel an inquest to finde if they be the goods of B. or not and then as he conceived it is good but the opinion of the Iudges in the Kings Bench in Mich. 5. Jac. in Trespass between Rookwood and Beal was to the contrary for there a Trespass was brought by Rookwood and the Defendant justified the taking and so forth as Sheriff by vertue of a fieri facias as of the goods of Edward Rookwood father of the Plantiff and upon the execution of this writ the Defendant impannelled a Iury who found the goods to be the goods of the said Edward Rookwook for which c. the Plantiff in the replication Traversed that they were his goods absque hoc that the Iury found that they were the goods of Edward Rookwood c. whereby it seemeth that the finding of the Iury in this case is not material and so the Court then conceived therefore quaere the opinion of Tanfield chief Baron in that point and see the 17. E. 2. pl. 373. and 31. E. 3. Assise pla 378. and 7. H. 4. fo 27. Trespass pla 279. what acts a Sheriff may justifie by reason of a commandment and authoritie from the Court which commanded him Snig Baron seemed that the action did lie for the writ of capias ad satisfaciendum maketh no mention that Julian Doillie is the same person against whom judgement was given in the Kings Bench by the name of Julian Goddard and although that the entrie in the Roll is against the said Julian c. yet the writ is directed that he should take Julian Goddard and then the Sheriff had not done according to the writ in the taking of Julian Doillie and he said that if A. binde himself by the name of I. and judgement is given against him by the name of I. without appearing in person and execution is granted against him by the name of I. in this case an action lies against the Sheriff if he take the said A. in execution for it appears not to him that it is the same person but for the other cause it seemeth that the Plantiff shall not have judgement for the Sheriff is no such person who ought to be priviledged here and therefore the Plantiff should have his remedy else where and he said that such a case hath been reversed in the Exehequer Chamber for error for the under-Sheriff is but an Attorney for a partie priviledged that is for the Sheriff but all the Clarks of the Court and the other Barons were against him in that and also all the presidents Altham Baron had never heard it argued before and therefore he respited his opinion till another day at which day he said that the arrest is not justifiable and so for the matter an action well lieth for by him the arrest ought to be in this case with a special recital that whereas judgement was given and so forth as in the 1. and 2. H. 6. if an Abbot hath judgement to recover and after he is deposed a scire facias lieth not against him as Abbot to reverse this judgement and see 10. E. 4. a capias against A. the son of R. c. see the 19. of H. 6. fo 12. Summons against Iohn S. c. see 18. H. 8. fo 1. a replevin was brought in the Countie Palatine against A. widdow and after she married D. and the plaint was removed into the Common Pleas mentioning her marriage c. and so here the scire facias ought to mention all the special matter and thereupon the writ of execution upon the reversal of the judgement ought to be against Iulian Doillie and not being so the Sheriff is punishable c. but it seemed to him that in this action the wife ought to have joyned with her husband for the false imprisonment or at the least if the husband had brought the action alone there ought to have been a special mention of the loss which the husband particularly had sustained as per quod consortium uxoris suae amisit or otherwise clearly it lieth not for the husband alone and he resembled this case to the cases in the 9th of E. 4. fo 51.22 Assise pla 87.46 E. 3. fo 3. where husband and wife ought to joyn in an action or at the least the declaration ought to be special as aforesaid and so are the books of the 20. H. 7. and Kellaway to be intended and for this cause he thought the Plantiff shall not have jugement here Tanfield chief Baron as I conceived said unto him that the writ ought to have been with a special averment but a surmise ought to have been made against Iulian Doillie as she now is for as the writ is the Sheriff may safely return she is not to be found and thereupon c. quaere if he intended the writ of scire facias ad audiendum errores or the writ of execution awarded upon the judgement in the Kings Bench for he did not mention any particularity of the writ but it seemeth that he intended the writ of execution and then the surmise whereof Tanfield spoke ought to be made upon the roll of the judgement given upon the writ of error and Tanfield chief Baron said as to the joyning in action that clearly for a battery made upon the wife the husband and wife ought to joyn in the action as the books are cited before by Baron Altham and so
the profit and comoditie of his Master the Plantiff and it is shewed that he intended to deceive his Master and the Queen also and where a wrong is made to another in my name whereby I am damnified there I shall have an Action and if in this case the Defendant had left the goods in the ship then the Plantiff had suffered no loss and therefore his taking them out of the ship is the cause which occasions the loss to the Plantiff and therefore it is reasonable that he should render us damages and he vouched the writ of deceipt in F. N. B. and divers cases therein put and 21. E. 4. that if a man bring an Action in London and the Defendant to delay my Action brings a writ of priviledge be shall have an Action upon the case and he vouched the like case to be adjudged in the Kings Bench 40. Eliz. between Byron and Sleith upon an Action of the case brought by the Defendant because he sued a scire facias against a Bail in a Court where he ought Bromley Puisne Baron said that the Plantiff shall have judgement First it shall be intended that the Plantiff was beyond the Seas at the time in respect of the Minute of time between his departure and the landing of the goods Secondly he said that it needs not be expressed that the Master had left moneys wherewith to discharge the custome for it shall be intended in this case because the Defendant had taken upon him to meddle according to the appointment of the Plantiff wherefore c. and so he departed to the Parliament Altham second Baron agreed that the Statute for the paying of custome appointeth that if the goods of any man be laid upon the land the custome not paid that then the goods shall be forfeited and therefore here he shall not lose his goods by reason of this Act made by the Defendant so that if the Defendant be a meer stranger to the Plantiff without question an Action of Trespass lies for this taking then in the principal case by reason of this trust an action of the case lies and if a stranger drives my Cattle upon your land whereby they are distrained by you I shall recover against the stranger for this distress by you in an action against him for by reason of this wrongful Act done by him I suffer this loss and he vouched 9. E. 4. fo 4. a case put by Jenney Snig third Baron to the contrary I agree that if a stranger put in my Cattle to the intent to do hurt to me a Trespass lieth but here is an Action upon the case and that lies not because it appears not sufficiently that the Defendant was servant to the Plantiff to Merchandise but generally his servant and therefore an Action of Trespas rather lieth generally for in an Action upon the case he ought to hit the bird in the eye and here it is not shewed that the goods were for the same voyage nor that the Defendant is a Common servant in this imployment also the Declaration is not good because he doth not shew that the Defendant had moneys or means from the Master to pay the custome and he is not compellable to lay out money of his own besides he cannot dispose of the goods until the custome be paid wherefore c. Tanfield chief Baron there are two matters to be considered in the case First if here you charge the Defendant as your special servant or if as a stranger Secondly if as a stranger then if an Action upon the case or a general Action of Trespass lieth and as to the first if in this case you have shewed him to be such a servant as a Bayliff or Steward and he hath misbehaved himself in such a thing which belongs to his charge without any special trust an Action upon the case lieth but if he be taken to be your general servant then he is to do and execute all Acts and lawful commands and against this general servant if his Master command him to do such a thing and he doth it not an action upon the case lieth but yet this is with this diversitie viz. if the Master command him to do such a thing which is in his convenient power or otherwise not and therefore if I command my servant to pay 100. l. at York and give him not money to hire a horse an Action lieth not for the not doing of this command but if I furnish him with ability to do it and then he doth it not an action lieth well against him and in the principal case it is shewed that the Plantiff appointed the Defendant being his servant generally to receive c. and to pay all customes c. then it is examinable if the Plantiff sufficiently inabled this Defendant to do this command and the woâ—ds of the command seem to be all one as if he had commanded the Defendant to receive the Wares paying the custome and therefore the Defendant needs not to receive them if he had not money to pay for the custome and so it is not within the Plantiffs command to receive the Wares and then if he doth receive them not paying for the customes this is another thing then the command anâ— therefore it is no misfeazance as my particular servant but being my general servant he had done another thing then I commanded him whereby I receive some damage and by consequence is in case of a stranger for if my general servant who is not my horse keeper take my horse out of my pasture and ride him this is a thing which he doth not as a servant but as a stranger then as to the second matter the Defendant being as a stranger if an action upon the case or a general action of Trespass lieth for this is as if my general servant take my horse and rides him without my appointment a general action of Trespass lieth but if by reason of his riding my horse die an action upon the case lieth and so it is in the case here the Defendant had laid the goods upon the land by reason whereof they were forfeited it is collourable that an Action upon the case lieth but if a man take my goods and lay them upon the land of A. a Trespass or an Action upon the case lieth against him who took them by the better opinion but it is good to be advised and it was adjourned and at another day Altham Baron said that an Action upon the case or a Trespass generally did lie well enough and he vouched F. N. B. that if a Bailiff arrest one without any warrant I shall have Trespass generally or an Action upon the case at my election and so in the like case 18. E. 4 fo 23. Trespass or Action upon the case lies also by F. N. B. if Executors be outed by the Testators Lessor there they may have an Action upon the case if they will or Trespass generally and in
Slade and Morleys case a case was put which proves it to be according Snig Baron agreed that Iudgement ought to be given for the Plantiff and by Tanfield if I take your goods and detain them until I have caused you to pay me 10. l. a general Action of Trespass lieth and not an Action upon the case and it is cited 7. H. 4. or 7. E. 4. to be accordingly but yet he agreed that judgement should be entred and so it was appointed to be done but then Chibborn for the Defendant said that here is a mistrial for if this trust be not material because it is not effectually shewed in the Declaration as you have argued then the Venue shall come only from the parish where the Wares were laid upon the land and not from the parish also where the appointment or trust was made by the Plantiff and therefore the trial also being from both parishes is a mistrial and the Court agreed that this is a mistrial upon that reason for now the appointment or Trust is but an inducement and therefore needs not to be shewed within what parish it was made and therefore a new Venire facias was granted and upon that a new trial and damages more then before and judgement was given accordingly Arden against Darcie NOta a good case of Attornament which was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood betwixt Arden and Darcie and it was this one Arden was seised in fee of divers lands in the County of c. and made a lease for years and after made a feofment with words of Grant of those lands to A. and B. to the use of the feoffor and his wife for their lives the remainder to Arden his son in tail and after the feoffor said to the Lessee that he had conveyed his land which the Lessee held in lease to the uses aforesaid and the Lessee said I like it well and after he paid his rent to the feoffor generally and it was decreed in the Exchequer Chamber that this is no Attornament because the Attornament ought to be to the feoffees and it appeareth not that the Lessee had notice of the names of the feoffees and therefore it cannot be said to amount to an Attornament but notwithstanding that Decree Arden the same to whom the remainder was limited had his Action depending in the Kings Bench to trie the point again as he said to me also this Term a point concerning the said Decree was in question upon another Bill exhibited in the Exchequer Chamber by Sir Edward Darcie against Arden and the case was as followeth Sir Edward Darcie exhibited his Bill here in the nature of a scire facias against Arden to shew cause wherefore the said Edward Darcie should not have execution of a Decree made in the time of Baron Manwood and the Defendant shewed that Darcie in his first suit supposed by his Bill that he had a grant of the land then and now in question from Queen Elizabeth rendring rent as it appears by the letters Patents and in facto there was no rent reserved upon the Patent and that the Defendant gave answer to the said Bill and admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and after a Decree was made against the Defendant and the Defendant now having shewed this special matter demurred upon this Bill in respect that by his pretence the Court had not jurisdiction to hold plea in the first suit and here it was shewed that the first decree was made upon a matter in Law not properly examinable by English Bill and that in facto the Law was therein mistaken and therefore the Defendant prayed that the decree may be re-examined Tanfield chief Baron it is usual in the office of Pleas that if an action be brought as a debtor of our Lord the King this is good although that de facto no suggestion be made thereof if it be not shewed on the other side and therefore a writ of Error for this falsity shall not cause the judgement to be reversed as it was resolved in a case in which I was of Councel and so here as it seemeth Altham Baron here we are in equity wherein we are not tied to so strickt a course as if it were in the office of pleas Brock of the Inner Temple for the Defendant in a Court of equity it is in the discretion of the Court to deny Execution of a decree if good cause be shewed and in 18. E. 4. fo 1. judgement was given against a married wife by the name of a feme sole and reversed although she did not shew in the first suit that she was married and in 8. E. 4. judgement was given in the Kings Bench in a suit and by writ of error was reversed although the Defendant had admitted the Iurisdiction of the Court and the chief Baron and all the Court inclined that Arden may exhibit a Bill to reverse this Decree made against him and may shew what point in Law the Iudges mistook in the Decree or otherwise we should not do as Law and Iustice requireth for it is not expedient to be examined by way of Bar to this Bill in the nature of a scire facias and after Arden according to the Decree of the Court and their direction did exhibit his Bill in the nature of a writ of error Comprising how the first decree was erroneously made and prayed that the said decree might be reversed and in his Bill he shewed the point in Law which was decreed and that upon divers long conveyances appears to be thus and so it was agreed by Councel on both parties that Arden the father was seised of the Mannor of Cudworth in the County of c. and was also seised of the Mannor of Parkhal in the same County and of Blackclose c. which was parcel of the Mannor of Cudworth but lying neer unto Parkhal and alwayes used and occupied with it and reputed parcel thereof but in truth it was parcel of Cudworth and that Arden the father made a Conveyance of the Mannor of Parkhal and of all the lands thereunto belonging and reputed as parcel thereof or occupied with it as part or parcel thereof and of all other his lands in England except the Mannor of Cudworth to the use of Arden his son that now is Plantiffe here and if Blackclose will pass to the son by this conveyance or if by intendment it shall be excepted by the exception made it was the question here and was decreed in the time of Baron Manwood that it is excepted by the exception but all the Barons now thought it to be a strong case that Blackclose is not excepted by the exception of the Mannor of Cudworth and so the first decree was upon a mistake out of the Law and Tanfield chief Baron said that the point is no other but that I infeoffe you of Blackacre parcel of the Mannor of D. exceyt my Mannor of D. this doth not except the King
the Mannor of Caversfield rendring rent and that this rent was arrear and thereupon an Inquisition returned and a scire facias issued to Moil who occupied the land to shew cause wherefore the King should not have this land whereupon he pleaded as Ter-tenant and upon this plea the Kings Attorney demurred but it was misentred as see hereafter but for divers great imperfections aswell in the Kings Commission as otherwise the Defendant ought to have judgement as all the Barons agreed as by the arguments of every Baron upon mature deltheration appeareth but for the reasons of the Barons to the exceptions taken by the Councel see after for they are very good Bromley Puisue Baron whereas the Inquisition purporteth that the Iurors in the County of Bucks have found a foundation of a Priory in the County of Oxon. that is not good by course of Law for if a thing be local the Iurors of another County cannot finde it and here the Commission giveth power only to inquire of things in the County of Bucks and he vouched Plowden in the Earl of Leicesters case upon a Commission directed to White Lord and Maior c. also the Inquisition is that Thomas Banbury Nuper Prior was seised and made a conveyance as is affirmed that is not good also the word Nuper may be intended a 100. years before and so no certainty as appears in Wrothesly and Adams case in Plowden Altham 2d Baron there are three faults in the Commission First is to inquire of a Mannor and lands of the late Priory of Bister in Caversfield in the County of Bucks and by these words no power is given to inquire of any thing concerning the Priory which is in the County of Oxon. and the words in the County of Bucks do defer to all the sentence precedent and not to the word Caversfield only 19 E. 4. fo 16 7. H. 6. fo 8. if A. B. and C. be insula de D. it shall be construed that the word insula hath reference to all the three Towas but if it were in A. B. and C. insula and not in insula then it is otherwise a Commission to inquire of lands of the Prior of Bister is evil without question where Bister is and he said that this may be proved by Pages case Cook lib. 5. also the Commission doth not propose any end wherefore the Iury should be but generally to inquire of the lands of the Priory at the time of the dissolution so that it may be certified to the King by the Inquisition the first fault which is found is that the Priory was founded by the name of the Church of Saint Mary and Saint Egbert without saying the Prior and Covent of c. and without finding of the place of the foundation viz. Bister and this cannot be without assignmend of the place of the foundation viz. Bister also the finding is that one Thomas Banbury then Prior as is affirmed made a feofment c. and this is not good because it ought to be absolutely found or otherwise it is not material also the intent of the feofment is found to be made by the Prior but no livery is found thereupon as it ought although that livery shall be intended in the case of a feofment pleaded by a common person yet it ought to be found expresly in the case of a Corporation and the finding here and that by vertue whereof he was seised as the Law requireth doth not aide the case Snig Baron it seems to me that this Commission was only to inform if the matter had been sufficient to us to give judgement to the King but here being to intitle c. it is not good the Commission is to inquire for the King of the lands of the Prior and this meerly incertain without saying certainly of what Prior and therefore they have no power to inquire of the lands of the Priory also the Iury of the County of Bucks cannot inquire of the name of the foundation of a Corporation in the County of Oxon. for the foundation is matter Local but it seems to me here that the finding by vertue whereof he was seised prout c. shall be intended that livery was made being by a verdict Tanfield chief Baron here is not any demurrer being mis-entred and therefore we have power to proceed to any matter in Law for the purpose in this case was that whereas the Statute of the 27. H. 8. of lesser Monasteries under the yearly value of 200. l. giveth them to the King and this Mannor of Caversfield within this Statute is to be seised as is pretended in this case whereupon this Commission issued to inform the King of this Mannor as parcel of these Revenues for I deny that it is an office of intitling it is only an office of instruction for the Statute of 27. H. 8. dissolves the smaller Monasteries and vests them actually in the King and this is the difference from the Statute of the 31. H. 8. for this Statute is only an Act to Abolish the lands of dissolved Monasteries and therefore this Statute is only to inform for the Statute of 27. H. 8. had intitled the King and he said that the land shall be in the King without office so that it being but an office of instruction this may be good notwithstanding divers incertainties therein contained but the plain and apparant fault herein is because it is not to inquire what lands the Prior had at the time of the dissolution as it ought to be for the words are to inquire what lands the late Prior had but it seems to me in this case that the Iurors of the County of Bucks may inquire of the foundation in another County without doubt this being but to inform and not to intitle and this is not alike mischief to the party for otherwise all Commissions to inform would be quashed and I have seen a Record in this Court where a man of a good family was found to be the Kings Villain regardant to a Mannor in Norfolk and this was done by a Iury in Suffolk and therefore in such cases God defend but that a Iury may finde a matter local in another County also a gross defect is in the Inquisition viz. because it doth not mention that the Mannor of Caversfield came to the King by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. but that the Priory came to the King by that Statute and doth not say that this Mannor was part of the possessions of the Priory at the time of dissolution and for these last matters it is apparent that the Inquisition and Commission are vitious although it be not proper for us as the case is to adjudge it for here is no demurrer joyned for the demurrer is joyned as if it were upon an Information of intrusion and here is no intrusion laid to the charge of the Defendant and yet after the plea pleaded by Moil the Attorney prayed that he may be
Heir except that judgement be given against the Ancestor and for that see 40. E. 3. Executors 74. and 41. Ass pl. 15. and 15. Eliz Dyer 322. And also if a Recusant had been convicted upon the Sat. of 23. Eliz. and dyed before judgement cleerely this forfeiture shall never be charged upon the Heir for the words are that a Recusant shall forfeit 20. l. a moneth and if he doe not pay it then appoints the recovery by Bill Plaint or Information and this ought to be alwaies in the life of the party then the Stat. of 28. Eliz. maketh not a new debt or Forfeiture but gives a penalty for the non-payment of that which was a debt within 23. Eliz. and that the intent of the Stat. of 28. Eli. was but such this is proved by the Title of the Act. viz. for the more speedy and due execution c. 2. It is proved by the first words of the Act for the avoiding of all delaies c. so that it appears that this Act is but as a penalty meerly Also he said that this Stat. of 28. Eliz. dispenceth with the conviction as to the penalty but doth not take away the Conviction also he said that conviction without Iudgement maketh not a Debt Also he who is convicted by proclamation and dieth is discharged Also he said that our Case hath been compared to a Debt upon an Obligation but this is not like for the Stat. stands not indefinite but hath reference to 23. for otherwise a Recusant may be doubly charged that is upon both the Statutes for there is no means to recover the Debt but by this Statute of 23. Eliz. See Sir Edward Walgraves case Dyer 231. Wentworth and others against Stanley WEntworth and his Wife and Rich and his Wife brought an Ejectione firmae against Stanley and shewed in their Declaration how one Edward Stanley was seised in Fee and infeoffed the Earl of Darby others to the use of himself for life the remainder to the use of the Plantiffs wife for 100. years and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant ejected them c. and this Feofment was made in 40. Eliz. the Defendant saith that long before one Richard Stanley was sesed in Fee and gave it to the said Edward Stanley in tail and that he so seised made a Feefment to the uses as is alledged and died and the Plantiffs entred and the Defendant as issue of the Feoffor re-entred and so by his pretence his is remitted whereupon it was demurred and upon the opening this case the Barons were clear of opinion that the issue in tail is remitted and came paramount the lease and so the lease for years is gone also by the chief Baron and Baron Snig there needs no Traverse to be alledged by the Plantiffe because it was but of a fee gained in an instant by the feofment of a Tenant in tail and a fee-simple gained in an instant needeth not to be Traversed 5. H. 7. and 2. E. 4. wherefore the Court said that judgement ought to be given against the Plantiffs but yet at the desire of the some the Court gave day to the Councel on both parts to argue the case at which day came Heneag Finch for the Plantiffs and he argued to the matter in Law and therein he said that by the feofment of Tenant in tail the use to himself for life the remainder to his daughters for years without limiting the residue of the use that in this case the residue of the use shall be in the feoffes and not in the feoffor for by him there is a difference between a feofment by him who had a fee with limitation of an use as above and a feofment made by him who derives an estate out of a fee for when Tenant for life or Tenant in tail makes a feofment and limits an use for part of the estate as above there the residue of the issue shall be to the feoffee and he vouched Castle and Dods case adjudged in the Common Pleas 8. Iac. that if Tenant for life grant over his estate without limiting of an use it shall be to the use of the grantee more strong here in a tortious act as our case is but if Tenant in tail will levy a fine with limitation of uses as above there the residue of the use shall be to the use of the Conusor Secondly admit that the residue of the use in this case shall he to the feoffor yet he shall not be remitted to the use as it seemeth the words of the Statute of 27. H. 8. are that cestuy que use shall have like estate in the land as he had in the use and therefore it is clear that the first taker of the use shall not be remitted as it is resolved in Amy Townsends case in Plowden and although the words of the Statute mention not heirs or issues yet by the intent of the Statute they are in equal degree but the Books which are against this opinion are two viz. 33. H. 8. Dyer fo 51. but there it is not expresly said that the issue is remitted but 34. H. 8 Br. remitter 49. is expresly against me but the same year in Dyer fo 54. it is there made a quere and in Bevils case it is only said that the first taker of the use cannot be remitted but of my opinion was Baldwin and Shelley in 28. H. 8. Dyer 23 24. and in Sanages case and 29. H. 8. it is resolved that if a man hath land by Act of Parliament there shall be no remitter and so here wherefore c. and he said if Tenant in tail be the remainder in fee and Tenant in tail makes a feofment to the use of himself in tail the remainder to him in remainder in fee in this case he in the remainder in fee shall not be remitted for then the first taker should be remitted to the pleading it seemeth that the bar is not good and first the general demurrer here doth not confess the matter of fact no more then in Gawins case in 29. H. 8. fo 40. by Brown a demurrer upon account in an appeal is no confession of the fact and in 44. Eliz. in Crisp and Byrons case accordingly see Sir Henry Browns case before a good case to this purpose then as to the Bar it seems it is not sufficient for want of a Traverse of a seisin in fee alledged in the feoffor who was Edward Stanley for it is a rule that two affirmatives cannot be allowed in a Declaration and the Bar without Traverse of that which is mentioned in the Declaration is not good except there be cause of some impossibilitie or inconvenience but yet this is to be understood where the affirmatives are express and not by implication as in Moiles case if the Defendant in his Bar confess a fee determinable he needs not Traverse the fee alledged by the Plantiffe but in our case here is an allegation made by the
Bent and another for a Close it was ordered and an Injunction accordingly awarded that the Defendant should suffer the Plaintiffe to injoy the said Close with the appurtenances until c. and contrary to this order the Defendant had put his Cattle into the Close and thereupon an Attachment issued to answer this contempt and he said that he put in his Castle for a title of Common and it was ruled that this was no breach of the Injunction because the Common was not in question in the Bill but only the title of the Close wherefore he was discharged of the contempt and with the appurtenants doth not include the Common to be taken in the said Close Henry Clares case UPon a motion made by Serjeant Barker it appeared that one Henry Clare was indebted to the King and was seised of a third part of certain lands in Norfolk and that Mr. Richardson of Lincolns Inne was seised of other two Acres of the same laud as Tenant in Common and the beasts of Mr. Richardson pastured promiscuously upon all the land and Henry Clare put more Cattle in and upon proces to levy this debt for the King the Sheriffe took the Cattle of Mr. Richardson and sold them and it was now ruled that in regard it was lawful for a Tenant in Common to put in his Cattle upon all the land and that if they depasture all the grass the other hath no remedy and for that cause the Sheriffe could not take those Cattle for the debt of another Tenant in Common but otherwise it would be if the Cattle had been levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor and in the principal case the Sheriffe was ordered to restore the monie to Richardson for which they were sold and that if they were worth more yet the Sheriffe should not be charged therewith except it could be made appear some fraud in the sale or that sufficient suerties were to pay and discharge the dutie but if my Cattle are levant and Couchant upon the land of the Kings debtor the King may distrain them damage Feasant but he cannot distrain them for the debt by Tanfield chief Baron and Altham clearly to which Baron Bromley consented but Snig said beware of that Smith and Jennings case VPon evidence to a Iury it was said by Tanfield that if a man make Charter of Feofment of lands in two Towns and a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before livery made by the Attorney the Feoffor himself maketh livery of the land in one Town this is a Countermand of the Letter of Atturney and so livery cannot be made by the Attorney in the other Town and quere if the Towns were in several Counties Bacon the Kings Solicitor said that if a man make a Charter of Feofment of two several Acres whereof one is in lease for years and the other in demeasne and the Feoffor makes a Letter of Attorney to make livery and before that be executed the Feoffor himself makes livery now although that one Acre cannot pass by this livery because it is in lease yet this is a Countermand and revocation of the authoritie given by the Letter of Attorney for his intent is manifest so to be to which Tanfield and all the Court agreed Hobert Attorney general said that in this case although that one of the Acres was in lease yet in regard it appeareth not that the Lessee was in actual possession therefore he conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in actual possession at the time of the livery made by the Lessor in the name of all and in respect there was no house upon the Acre in Lease it may be intended that the Lessee should be in actual possession but for that cause he rather conceived that it should be construed that the Lessee was not in possession and so the livery might well operate to pass it Tanfield and all the Court denied that the livery was good to pass it although that the Lessor was in actual possession but where Mr. Atturney alledged further that before the livery made an Infant had a Term for years in this Acre in lease and that the Feoffor at the time of the livery was gardian to the Infant and thereby had a possession therein and therefore the livery made in the other Acre in the name of all should be good to pass all to which the Court agreed and thereupon directed the Iury to finde the livery and seisin to be made of all and in this case the Court inclined that because this Feofment was made but ten dayes before that the Feoffor committed Treason and in asmuch as it was made to the use of the son being an Infant and not upon consideration of marriage that therefore the Feofment should be fraudulent and void as to the King but the Atturney general said that this Feofment was made in performance of a precedent agreement viz. it was agreed that the Feoffor should make such a conveyance to an use c. and that the wife of the Feoffor also being an Inheritrix should make such a conveyance of her land which was done accordingly and upon proofe of this agreement the Court inclined that it was no fraud and in this case it was ruled by the Court if parties have matter of evidence by the Records of this Court they ought to produce the Records themselves for Copies of them are not allowable It was said by Altham and agreed by the Court that if an Information be exhibited for intruding into a Close the 24th day of March and for the asportation of 9. Cart Loads of Wheat betwixt the 24th of March and the first of October the which the Detendant converted c. and upon not guiltie pleaded the Jury found that the Defendant took three Cart Loads of the said Corn upon the 24th day of March and after before the first of October they took also three Cart Loads more and damages were assessed for all that here no judgement shall be given upon this verdict for the Information doth not charge the Defendant with the taking of any part upon the 24th day of c. and then in regard that damages are more judgement can be given for no part of it see Cook lib. 5. Plaisters case but this case being moved at another day Tanfield said that he having inspected the Record he found the verdict insufficient for another cause because the Jury found that as to one Cart Load of Wheat to the value of 20. l. the Defendant was guiltie and doth not mention to what damage viz. to the damage of 100. s. or otherwise and by him ad valentiam is not sufficient without shewing also to what damage and for that cause by him a venire facias de novo ought to be awarded and so it was done by the Court. Edwards case EDwards case was that an erroneous judgement was given in a Coppihold Court where the King was Lord and this