Devisees took their estates respectively by the Will or by the Feoffment if by the Will it was void for a third part and a Tenancy in common If by the Feoffment it was good for the whole 2. point when the use of the Feoffment is expressed to such persons as should be declared by the Will and he deviseth the Land if the same shall be said to be a limitation of the use according to the Authority The case not Resolved because the Justices were divided in their opinions It was adjourned Prat and Phanners Case 652. Debt upon Obligation The condition was Whereas Suits have bin brought prosecuted betwixt the Defendant and A his Wife which controversies are now finally to be ended betwixt them if the Defendant do not from henceforth commence and prosecute any Suit or Action in any Court or Courts Spiritual or Temporal against the said A. his Wife for any matter precedent or cause from the beginning of the World but shall from henceforth during the natural Lives of him the Defendant and A. his Wife account of use and maintaine the said A. as his lawful wife to all intents c. then c. The Defendant pleaded he had not brought any Action in any Court against the said A. after the said Obligation and that before A. was married to him she was married to I. S. who is yet alive for which cause he cannot accept of and maintain the said A. as his lawfull wife according to the Form of the Condition upon which it was demurred It was Resolved that the material part of the Condition did consist in the first part of the Condition if he do not prosecute any Suit and the Defendant having pleaded an Issuable Plea to that it is not material if he plead to the latter part of it or not and if his Justification be insufficient the Plaintiff ought not to have demurred upon it But the Court held his Justification to be good because the Condition as to that part is against the Law of God and so the Obligation void And whereas it was objected that he is estopped to plead the special matter of her former Marriage because in the Condition she is called A. his wife The Court said he was not estopped by it because he may confess and avoid it for she may be his Wife as to some purposes but as to use her as a lawfull wife she is not his wife Lloyd and Wilkingsons Case 653. In Ejectione firme the case was A. Rector of C. by Indenture between him of the one part and E. R. W. and T. of the other part devised the same to E. for 80. years if she should so long live and should not alien the premises and if she should die within the Term or should alien that then her Estate should cease and that then the same should remain to R. pro durant ' residuo praedicti termini praedict ' 80. annorum and if he should alien c. ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the same should remain to W. pro durant ' tot annis praedict termini 80. annorum si c. and if he should alien ut supra then his Estate should cease and then the said A. concessit praemissa durante tot annis praedict ' 80. annorum quod ad tunc continuarent remanerent in expiratis to T. his Executors and Assignes A. died F. died E. and R. died The Administrator of F. entred and assigned over the same In this Case it was Resolved That the Demise to R. and W. were void because that the Estate which E. had was not for 80. years absolutely but sub modo under a condition and then the Demise to them pro tot annis quot remanerent after the death of the said E. pro durante residuo termini praedict ' 80. annorum was void for there could not be a residue of the said Term because that determined by the death of E. 2. Resolved That the Lease and Limitation to F. was void for the uncertainty for it was uncertain at the making of the Lease how many years should be behind at the time of the death of E. 3. Resolved That the Demise and Limitation to T. was not good because that R. and W. survived F. which was against the express Limitation for his Estate was limited upon two Contingents Pigot and Hearns Case 654. In Trover and Conversion the case was this The Lord of the Mannor of B. in the Parish of D. did prescribe that he and his Ancestors and all those whose Estate c. had used from time to time whereof c. to pay to the Parson of D. the now Plaintiff and his Predecessors 6 l. per an for all manner of Tythes growing within the said Parish and that by reason thereof he and all those whose Estates c. Lords of the said Mannors had used time whereof c. to have Decimam garbam decimum cumulum garbarum of all of his Tenements within the said Mannor It was in this case Resolved that it was a good Prescription and that a Modus decimandi by the Lord for himself and all the Tenants of his Mannor from barring the Parson to demand tythes in kind is a good Prescription because it might have a lawful commencement 2. It was Resolved That it was a good Prescription to have Decimam garbam in or Decimum cumulum garbarum or gramorum or the tenth Shock for he hath it as a profit appender and not as Tythes 3. Resolved in this case that if the Queen be Lady of the Mannor she might prescribe to have Tythes for that she is capable of them she being Persona mixta capax Spiritualis Jurisdictionis Holcrofts Case 655. A seised of Lands in Fee levyed a Fine thereof to the use of himself for Life the Remainder to B. his Son for the Term of his Life only so long and untill he attempt to alien and then to the use of C. and the Heirs Males of his Body during the Life of B. and immediately after his death to the use of the first begotten Son of B. then after to be begotten and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to his Second Third or Fourth Son to be begotten in lawful Marriage and if it fortune the Fourth Son to die without Heir Male of his Body then to the use of C. and the Heirs Male of his Body with diverse Remainders over in tail the remainders to the right Heirs of A. A. dyed B. having only one Son born after the Indenture and Fine which dyed without Issue Male joyned in a Fine with C. to I. S. and I. D. who rendred the Land to B. for 80. years next following if the said B. so long lived and immediately after his Decease to the first begotten Son of the said B. or which afterwards he should beget and the Heirs Males of his Body and so successively to the Second or Third
good against a Purchaser bna fide for valuable consideration Crowther and Fryers Case 800. The case was a Parson sued a Copyholder for Tythes arising upon his Copyhold he prayed a Prohibition and suggested that the Bishop of W. was Lord of the Mannor and that he and his Predecessors time out of mind c. for them their Farmors and Tenants had bin discharged of Tythes arising upon the Mannor and shewed he had bin a Copyholder of the Mannor and preseribed in his Lord. It was the opinion of the Justices in this case that although there is a Prescription upon a Prescription one in the Copyholder to make the estate good the other in the Bishop to make his discharge good yet a Prohibition lyeth for the Prescription in the Lord of Right of necessity and common Intendment proceeds the Prescription in the copyhold estate and the discharge of the Tythes in the Lord shall go to the benefit of the Copyholder Blake and Allens Case 801. B. was bounden 10 A. in an Obligation of an 100 l. for the true behaviour of his Son he being an Apprentice to A. A. after the sealing and delivery of the Bond razed out the word Libris and inserted the word Marcis It was the opinion of the Justices it was not a Forgery punishable because he made his own Bond void and it was not a prejudice to any but to himself 802. Two Executors made Partition of their Testators Specialties and then one of them did release to the Debtor an Obligation which did appertain to the part of the other the Debtor having notice of the Partition betwixt them the other sued in Chancery for Reliefe but the Chancery would not relieve him but if the Release was obtained by Covin for a less Sum then the Debt was there it was holden the Debtor should satisfie the Over-plus 803. It was agreed by the Justices that the Hundred is not chargable with the escape of the Felons nor to pay the Robbery if the Robbery be done in an House nor if it be a Robbery in the High-way in the Night 804. Note It was Resolved â—9 Feb. 43. Eliz. by the Justices upon the Arraigment of the Earl of Essex 1. That when the Queen sent the Lord Keeper and others of her Council to him commanding him to disperse the armed persons which he had in his house and to come to her and he refused so to do and kept the armed men in his house that that was Treason 2. That when he went with a Troop of Captains and others into the city of London and there prayed aid of the citizens to assist him in defence of his Life and to go with him to the Court so as he might be of power to remove his Enemies which attended upon the Queen that that was Treason 3. That the Fact in London was actual Rebellion although he did not intend hurt to the Queen 4. That the adherence of the Earl of Southampton to the Earl of Essex although he did not know of any other purpose then of a private Quarrel which the Earl of Essex had against certain of the Queens Sewants was also Treason in him 5. That all those who went with the Earl out of Essex-House into London whether that they knew his intent or not were Traitors although they departed by Proclamation but those who upon a suddam adhered to him in London and departed so soon as Proclamation was made they were within the Queens Grace of pardon by the Proclamation Holland Jackson and Ogdens Case 805. Error was brought to reverse a Recovery and a Scire facias issued against K and other Terre-Tenants depending which a Writ of Estrepment was awarded against the Terre-Tenants and Resolved it did well lye Dalton and Hamonds Case 806. It was Resolved by the Justices in this case that if the Lord demandeth an excessive Fine of his Copyholder and he refuseth to pay it it is no forfeiture otherwise where it is a reasonable Fine and the Court and Jury shall be Judges of the reasonableness of it But if a Fine be certain the Tenant is to bring it with him to Court and to pay it before admittance and if he be not ready to pay it it is a forfeiture Gambleton and Grassons Case 807. In Trover and Commission it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in stay of Judgment that the Distringas with the Nisi prius bore the same date with the Venire facies It was the Resolution of the Court that it should be amended for it was aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. Higgins and Spicers Case 808. A Venire facias was awarded to the Coroners ita quod B. who was one of the Coroners se non intromittat because he was the Servant of R. who was Sheriff It was said the same was no cause of Challenge but the Court conceived it was because confessed However it was but a misconverting of process which was aided by the Statute Hall and Jones Case 809. Action was brought upon the case for slanderous words in a Court of Pipowders The Stile of the Court was Curia pedis pulverizati ratione Mercati c. Secundum consuetudinem Civiiatis It was adjudged there for the Plaintiff and Error brought and Assigned that a Court of Pipowders doth not belong to a Market but to a Faire The Court held that by custome of a city or place it might be to a Market 2. Resolved that an Action upon the case for slanderous words did not lie in a Court of Pipowders and for that cause the Judgment was reversed The Countess of Warwick Attwood and Davies Case 810. Action upon the case against two the one pleaded to Issue the other demurred upon the Demurrer the Plaintiff had Judgment and a Writ of enquire of Damages against him alone and the Defendant relinquished the other Issue It was the opinion of the Court that he might relinquish against him and have Judgment and execution of the damages against the other only Sir Gervase Clifton and Chancellors Case 811. In Trover and Conversion of Jewels The Defendant pleaded that a Stranger was possessed of the Jewels and sold them to him in his shop in Bristol he being a Gold-Smith and because he did not say that the Sale was in pleno Mercatu nor aver'd it was his shop in which he used the Trade of a Gold-Smith It was adjudged for the Plaintiff and in this case it was agreed that the King cannot grant to one that his Shop shall be a Market overt to bind Strangers because it is against the Law Ludd and Wrights Case 812. In debt to perform an Accord the breach was assigned of a thing out of the Submission and issue being joyned the Plaintiff at the Nisi prius was Nonsuit Then the Judgment given upon the insufficient Pleas is not upon the Nonsuit It was holden the Defendant should have costs for the unjust vexation Gawen and Rants Case 813. In Replevin the case was
the Justices that a Writ of Error was not maintainable in the Exchequer Chamber by the Statute of 27. Eliz. upon a Judgment in B. R. upon Rescous because it is not within the words of the Statute although it be a Trespass Giddy and Heales Case 915. Action upon the case in B. R. by Heale for these words he being a Counsellor at Law Whereas one said to Giddy that Heal had affirmed upon his credit that the Fee-simple of certain Lands was in the Patentees of the Queen The said Giddy said No friends Heales Warranty we well know a great number of his Country trusting to his Warranty have been undone It was adjudged in B. R. for the Plaintiff and 100 l. damages and Error being brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the Words were not actionable The Judgment was affirmed Marronor and Cottons Case 916. Judgment was given against Marroner in the B. R. for Cotton for these words spoken against Cotton a Justice of the Peace viz. He hath received mony of a Thief that was apprehended and brought before him for stealing of Sheep to let him escape and keep him from the Goal Error brought in Exchequer Chamber and assigned the words were not actionable but the Judgment in B. R. was affirmed Bâ—shop and Gins Case 917. Debt upon an Obligation in B. R. for performance of Covenants one was that he delivertd a Ship in London usque portum de Blackney and no time limited for it and the breach was assigned in it that he did not deliver the ship such a day and Judgment there for the Plaintiff Error brought and assigned that the Issue was ill joyned because he had time to deliver it during his Life that the Court said was but the misjoyning of the Issue which was remedied by the Statute of Jeofails after Verdict 2. Error that the Venire was of Blackney where it ought to be de Portu Blackney The Court held it no Error but good and the Judgment was affirmed Falsowe and Thornies Case 918. In Debt the Venire upon the Roll was retornable die Martis post 15. Trin. and the Writ in facto was returned die Jovis post 15. Trin. that was assigned for Error but non allocatur because but misawarding of Process which is aided by the Statute of Jeofails and the Judgment was affirmed Cundey and Edgecombs Case 919. In Debt the Venire was filed Trin. 35. Eliz. to try an Issue between Richard Cundey de Bodrygan querent Peter Edgecombe de Mount Edgecomb in Com. Devon Defendant The Writ was direct Vic' Cornubiae Hill 39 Eliz. The continuance upon the Roll was Juratores inter Richardum Cundey de Bodygran in Comitatu Cornubiae mercatorum queren Petrum Edgecombt de Mount Edgecomb in Com-Devon in placito debiti ponitur in respectu nisi Justitiarii ad Assisas in Comitatu praedict capiendas assignat prius venerint c. upon the Margent was written Cornubiae It was assigned for Error that the last County is Devon in the Addition of the Defendant for the habitation of the Defendant The Justices held it no Error because Cornubiae was in the Margent and where there are two Counties before Com. praedict shall extend to that which will affirm the Judgment although the other be the Prochine antecedent Wilcoks â—nd Hewsons Case 920. Debt upon a Bill of 30. l. The Defendant pleaded he delivered the Bill upon a Condition to the Plaintiff that if he did procuer a particular of certain Land that it should not be his Deed but if he did not procure the particular it should be his Deed The Plaintiff took Issue it was his Deed and so found by Verdict Error brought and assigned that the Defendants plea was insufficient and the Plaintiff ought to have demurred upon it and the Issue which he took was vain and void because the especial matter had confessed the Deed and so the Issue is taken upon a thing confessed the Judgment was affirmed because the Defendant cannot assign Error in his own Plea and although the Issue be joyned upon a thing confessed the same is but surplussage and it was in the Election of the Court to give Judgment either upon the Plea or the Verdict Joyner and Ognells Case 921. Debt upon a Bill of 100 l. by Humphrey Joyner Executor of George Skiner against the Defendant the Defendant pleaded per minas and after Issue joyned befor Nisi prius he confessed the Action in Court The confession was entred non potest dedicere quia ipse debuit praedict ' Georgio Skinner in vita sua praedict ' 100. l. modo forma poout and upon that the Judgment was Quod praedict Humfred Joyner recuperet versus praedict ' Georgium Ognel debittum suum praedict ' necnon quatuor libras pro damnis suis quae sustinuit tam occasione detentionis debiti praedict ' quam pro missis c. eidem Humfredo Skinner per curiam adjudicat upon this Judgment Error was brought and assigned that the confession of the Action is not according to the Declaration for the Declaration is in the debuit to the Testator and Detinet of the Executor as it ought to be but the Confession is in the Debuit only 2. Error the Judgment is Quod Humfrey Joyner recuperet debitum eidem Humfredo Skinner adjudicant whereas it ought to be eidem Humfredo Joyner adjudicat As to the first Error the Court said that after the Defendant hath relinquished the Bar the Declaration remains without defence for which cause the Court may well judge for the Plaintiff and for the second Error it was amended by the Court. Gomersall and Watkinsons Case 922. Eliz. Watkinson the Defendant brought Debt in B. R. against the Plaintiff Executor of William Gomersall and shewed that the Testator retained her in his Service 28 Eliz. taking 40 s. for one year for her Wages and so from year to year and that she had served the Testator five years who died her wages not paid The Defendant the Executor pleaded Nihil debet which was found against him and Judgment for the said Eliz. the Plaintiff Error was brought and assigned the Action did not lie against the Executor It was said by the Justices it appeareth prima facie upon the Declaration that the said Eliz. was compellable to serve by the Statute of 5 Eliz. and then when he voluntarily retains her in service being compellable to serve the Master cannot wage his Law in Debt for the wages and therefore the Action is maintainable against his Executors Stanton and Suliards Case 923. Note It was Resolved in this Case Whereas the Sheriff brought an Action upon the case against the Defendant in the Kings Bench upon Assumpsit to pay the Sheriffs Fee upon arresting the party in Execution which was 12 d. for every pound where the Execution did exceed a 100 l. and there Judgment was given for the Plaintiff that upon Error thereupon brought in the Exchequer the Judgment was reversed because an Action
The Spanish Ambassador and Plages Case 1040. Plage was pressed with his Ship at Lisbone to carry the King of Spains Soldiers to such a Port and had their Letters from the Vice-Roy of Portugal to trade to Brasil he performed the Service of Transportation and 14 months after traded at Brasil and freighted his Ship there for the transportation of Goods to Hamborough and was bound with Sureâ—ies in the Custom-house of Brasil to pay the customes due to the King of Spain at St. Michaels the Ship by tempest was forced into England and did not touch at St. Michaels The Spanish Ambassador pretending the Goods to be forfeit to the King of Spain sued for them in the Admiralty here and a Sentence was there for the King of Spain to have the Goods Plage sued to the Lord Chancellor here to have an Appeal from that Sentence and an Appeal was granted him Sir Thomas Palmers Case 1041. Sir Thomas Palmer who was attainted of Treason in the time of Ed 6. for natural affection 7 Ed 6 by Indenture covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself for Life the remainder to I. S. for Life the remainder to the first Son of the said I. S. in tail the remainder to his eighth Son he was attainted before I. S. had any Son It was Resolved that by the Attainder the Son of I. S. was barred which was afterwards born and the Fee-simple was in the Crown discharged of all the Remainders Jepps and Tunbridges Case 1042. The Defendant delivered a brief of the cause to some of the Jâ—rors impannelled before they appeared for their Instructions This was adjudged an offence for which he was Sentenced in the Star-chamber And in this case it was Resolved that the Plaintiff and Defendant himself may labor the Jurors to appear but a stranger cannot so do 2. That the writing of a Letter or a request by wordâ— by one not a party to the Suit to the Jurors to appear is Maintenance 3. It is not lawful for the party himself to instruct the Jurors either by writing or by word nor to promise them any Reward for their appearance for it is Embracery in them aswell as in a stranger Sis Tho. Dâ—wbridgecourt and Sir Anthony Ashleys Case 1043. The Defendant was decreed â—n Chanceâ—y to pay 1000 l. to the Plaintiff after the Decree the Defendant procured the Son of Sir Thomas by a Letter of Attorney which he had from his Father to agree only the Suit for 200 l. whereof 100 l. was paid in hand and the rest to be paid at a day certain to make a Release which the Son did in his own name but not in the name of his Father It was the opinion of the Justices and also of the Lord Chancellor that this Release was void Crew and Vernons Case in the Star-chamber 1644 Sir Randolph Crew and all those whose Estate c. he had in the Mannor of Crew time out of mind c. had had Turf to born in the House of Crew-hall in a great Waste called Okehanger Moor being interâ—upted he sued in the Exchequer at Chester whereupon Affidavit of the possession 60. years his possession was established After the hearing of the Cause there Vernon interrupted the servants of Crew and with Harrows tore the Turffs for which cause a Bill was exhibited in the Star-chamber against the said Vernon and others they put in a scandalous Answer saying that the Judge at Chester ought not in Justice have made such an Order and called the Affidavit an equivocating Affidavit and affirmed the owners of the Mannor of Crew had taken the Turff but by License and Vernon affirmed to the Court that he had a Release to shew for the discharging of the Prescription but no such Prescription could be shewed nor was but a Grant of Turff to be there taken In this case it was Resolved by the Court the Prescription was not determined by the new Grant but the Grant enured as a confirmation and so the title of Prescription remained 2. Resolved that the words spoken of the Court of Chester were very scandalous and the Affidavit which he called an equivocating Affidavit was approved by the whole wherefore the Defendants were sentenced and fined by the Court and the defendants were to acknowledge their offence to the Court of Chester Sir Anthony Barkers Case 1046. I. S. exhiâ—ited a Bill in the Star Chamber against Sir Anthony Barker and divers other Gentry of Credit and charged the Defendants with the forging of the Will of M. P. and with many undue practices in drawing the said M. P. to make such a Will At the hearing of the Cause the Plaintiff relinquished the Forgery confessing it was no Forgery but would have insisted upon the practices of the Defendants for drawing the said M. P. to make the Will The Court refused to permit the Plaintiff to insist upon the practices for if he would have insisted upon the practices he ought to have confessed the Will and then have shewed the undue practises used to draw her to make such Will Wherefore the Plaintiff was fined 200 l. to the King and the Court gave Damages to each of the Defendants and the reason why they gave damages they declared to be because the Bill being scandalous no action lay for the Defendants at Law because the Bill was prefered before competent Judges to punish the Offences if there had been any and therefore it was reason by reason of such defect of the Common Law in giving damages the Court having Jurisdiction of the Cause supplied the said defect Goodricks Case 1047. Goodrick at a Tavero said to D. being a Master of Arts at Cambridge That there was late a great Contestation befor the King betwixt the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Northampton Lord Privy Seal because the Archbishop enformed that since the said Lord had been Warden of the Cinque Ports there were more Jesuites and Seminary Priests come into the Realm then before which he said was the Newes of the Court Another offence was That Ingram a Merchant had heard at Ligorne in Florence by two Students out of the Colledge at Rome that the Earl of Northampton writ a Letter to Cardinal Bellaâ—ine to pray him that no answer should be made to his book which he had Written upon the Treason of Garnet the Jesuite because he writ it only ad placandum Regem faciendum populum The Defendants were found Guilty upon their Confessions It was Resolved by the Justices it was a slander within the Statute of Z. R. 2. which moved sedition betwixt the King and his Nobles and that although the publisher did produce his author of such false newes yet he himself was punishable and if one saith there is common Rumor that such a one hath done such an act an action upon the Case lyeth although he doth produce his Author And in this Case it was agreed that if one sayes to another the effect of
abate upon the Plaintiffs own suing Strowde and Willis Case 521. Debt upon an Obligation The Condition was If the Obligor shall pay the Rent of 37 l. yearly at two Feasts according to the intent of certain Articles of Agreement made between the Obligor and Obligee during the Term that then c. The Defendant pleaded the Articles did contain That the Obligor Dimisit ad forman tradidit to the Defendant omnia talia domus tenementa terras in Parochia de Y. in quibus the Obligee had an Estate for Life by Copy according to the custom of the Mannor Habendum for 21. years if the Obligee should so long live rendring to the Obligee during the Term 37. l. to be paid at the Castle of C. and further pleaded That at the time of the making of the Articles the Obligee had not any Estate in any Lands Houses c. in Y. for term of Life by Copy upon which Plea the Plaintiff demurred There were two points in the case 1. If nothing passed by the Articles and so the Reservation of the Rent is vod 2. If the Obligation for payment of the Rent was void It was Resolved upon the first point That no Rent is reserved for the Lease did never begin and therefore the Rent should not For the second point the Court differed in opinion Fenner Justice held the Condition of the Bond is to pay the Rent according to the Articles which is That if the Lessee have not the Land the Lessor shall not have the Rent Papham cont That the Obligor is bound to pay it although nothing was dimised to him for that by the Bond he hath made it a Sum in gross and it is altered from the nature of a Rent and he is bound to pay the Rent or Sum and if this be either of them he must pay it Qu. There is no Judgment in the Case upon that point Alsop and Claydons Case 522. Assumpsit That the Defendant upon good consideration promised to pay the Plaintiff 5 l. when he should be required The Jury found that the Defendant promised to pay but found no Request wherefore it was adjudged against the Plaintiff Perin and Corbets Case 523. In an Appeal the Defendant was acquitted of the Murder and found guilty of Man-slaughter It was agreed in that case that the Plaintiff could not be Nonsuit Brown and Brinckleys Case 524. The Plaintiff declared that he was produced for a Witness the Defendant said he was disproved before the Justices of Assize by the Oath of K. innuendo that he was disproved in his Oath Adjudged that the Action did not lie for the innuendo cannot supply such intendment Adderby and Bouthbyes Case 525. Assumpsit in consideration the Plaintiff would be Bail for one F. in a Plaint that Adderby had brought in London against F. the Defendant did promise to save the Plaintiff harmless touching the Bail and shewed a Recovery was against F. and 2. Cap. returned non est inventus upon which Process issued against the Bail who paid the money and the Defendant had not saved him harmless It was found upon Non assumpsit the first Action was entred by the name of Adderby and the Bail accordingly and that the Decleration was by the name of Adderley It was adjudged that although the Jury found the Assumpsit yet the special matter proves the Plaintiff had no cause of Action for he was not damnified by reason of the Bail at the Suit of Adderby for which the Assumpsit was but he was wrongfully taken if he was Bail for Adderley against whom the Recovery was had whereas in truth he was not Bail for him wherefore it was judged against the Plaintiff Austin and Twins Case 526. The Patronages of two Churches adjoyning within one mile were belonging to one Parson and both being void and of the value of 7 l. in the Queens Books the Ordinary made an union of them at the request of the Patron which was afterwards confirmed by the Patron and the Queen Qu. If a good union Tusking and Edmonds Case 527. A Lease was made of Tythes rendring Rent at a place out of the Parish with clause to be void upon non payment Adjudged the Lessor is to make his demand of the Rent at the place and for not payment the Lease is void Broughton and Mulshoes Case 528. False Imprisonment The Defendant justified that he was Constable and the Plaintiff being in the presence of a Justice of Peace not having opportunity to examine him commanded he Dedant to take the Plaintiff into his custody till the next day which he did accordingly It was adjudged a good Justification though not alledged what cause the Justice had to imprison the Plaintiff Megs and Griffins Case 529. Words viz. I. S. told me that he heard say That thou didst poyson thy first Husband and that he died of that poyson with an averment that I. S. near told the Defendant so Yet adjudged that neither words nor the averment of them were sufficient to maintain the Action Brokes Case 530. Words spoken of a Merchant viz. He is a false man and I will prove it and be keepeth a false Debt-book for he charged me with a Piece of three Piled Velvet which I never had Adjudged the Action did not lie without saying That by disswasion of Customers or other they did not deal with him nor that they would not trust him The Lord de la Ware and Pawlets Case 531. Words spoken of the Plaintiff in open Sessions viz. You have perverted Justice and to your shame and dishonour I will prove it adjudged the words actionable Weekes and Taylors Case 532. Words viz. he hath laid in wait to rob and was one of them that would have robbed me adjudged actionable though he was not robbed Carters Case 533. Words viz. Carter is a proging pilfring Merchant and hath pilfred away my coâ—n from my Wife and my Servants and this I will stand to adjudged the words are not actionable Bowyer and Jenkins Case 534. Action upon the case for words spoken at B. in the County of S. the Defendant justified that he spake the worda at C. at a Tryal there being produced as a Witnesse by Subpoena and sworn The Plaintiff said de injuria sua propria and found for the Plaintiff and because the venire was from B. whereas it ought to have been from C. where the Justification was It was adjudged Error Penniman and Rawbanks Case 535. Action for slandring his Title That the Plaintiff was seised of Land and put it to sale and the Defendant said I wish not any man to deal with the Land for I know one that hath a good Title to it and the parties will not depart with their interest for any reason The Defendant Justified that he had a Lease in Reversion of it and at will of other part It was replied de injuria sua propria and found for the Plaintiff Resolved by the Justices If
Large At last it was Resolved That that Ordinance although it had the Warrant of a Charter was against the Common Law because it was against the Liberty of the subject for every subject by the Law hath Freedom and Liberty to put his Cloth to be dressed by what Clotheworker he pleases and cannot be restrained to any persons for that in effect would be a Monopoly Creswell and Holms Case 756. Debt upon Obligation the Condition was If the Obligee his Heirs and assignes shall and may Lawfully hold and enjoy a Messuage c. without the let c. of the Obligor or his Heirs or of every other person discharged or upon reasonable request saved harmlesse by the said Obligor from all former guifts c. the Defendant said no request was made to save him harmlesse It was adjudged for the Plaintiff because the Defendant hath not answered to all the Condition viz. to the enjoying of the Land and there were 2. Conditions viz. the enjoying and the saving harmlesse Chowley and Humbles Case 757. A Covenanted to make a Feoffment within a year to the use of himself for life the Remainder to H. his younger Son and the Heirs males of his body which remain over and if he did not make the Feoffment he Covenanted for those uses for the Continuance of the Land in his name and Blood Proviso if H. or any Heir male make a Feoffment or Levy a Fine his estate to cease as if he were dead and then the Feoffees to stand seised to the use of such person to whom the Land should Remain No Feoffment was made within the year A. dyed H. the Son levyed a Fine to the Defendant Resolved 1. That the Proviso to cease the estate was repugnant upon his estate for life 2. That his estate could not cease when he had levyed a Fine because then he had no estate 3. That the Feoffees and their Heirs could not stand seised to the use of the person next in discent or Remainder because no Feoffment was ever made Nevil and Sydenhams Case 758. In valore Moritagii The opinion of the Justices seemed to be That a tender was not material but that the value of the mariage was due withot a Tender Atkins Case 759. The Father devised his Land to his Son and the Heirs of his body and further I will that after the decease of my Son John the Land shall remain to G. Son of John Adjudged John had Tail and his Wife should be endowed Carter and Cleypales Case 760. All-Soules Colledge made avoid Lease by the Statute of 13 Eliz. because no Rent was reserved It was a Lease only to try title and Judgment Error was brought and assigned after that the Lease was void The Judgment was affirmed because the party did not plead the Statute for otherwise the Judges are not to take Notice of it Clarke and Dayes Case 761. A man devised Lands to his daughter for life And if she marry after my death and have issue of her body then I will that her Heir after my Daughters death shall have the Land and to the Heirs of their bodies begotten the Remainder in Fee to a Stranger It was adjudged she had not tail but only for Life and the Inheritance in his Heir by purchase and therefore in this case it was Resolved the Husband of the wife could not be Tenant by the Curtesie Deacon and Marshes Case 762. A seised in Fee of a house and possessed of Goods Devised in these words The rest of my Goods Lands and Moveables after my Debts paid c. To my three children B. C. and D. equally to be divided amongst them Adjudged they had but an Estate for Life in the House and that they were Tenants in Common of it and not Joynt-Tenants Smith and Mills Case 763. Adjudged that a Sale made of his goods by a Bankrupt after a Commission of Bankrupt is awarded is utterly void Gibons and Marltiwards Case 764. A. devised certain Land to B. and C. his wife who was the daughter of A. upon condition that they within 10. years should give so much of the Land as was of the value of 100 l. per an to F. F. and that he should find a Preacher in such a place and if they failed their Estate to cease and that then his Executors should have the Land to them and their Heirs upon trust and confidence that they should stand seised to the same uses B. within the 10. years made a writing of Gift Grant and Confirmation but no Livery nor Enrolment of it till after the 10. years The Executors refused to take upon them the Execution of the Will yet it was adjudged they should take the Land by the Devise and that the words upon Trust and Confidence made not a condition to their Estates Arrundells Case 765. In Indictment of Murder the Murder was alledged to be apud Civitatem Westm in Com. Middl. in Parochia St. Margaret and for Tryal a Jury was retorned de Vicineto Civitate Westm Resolved the Tryal not good for the Visne ought to have bin of the Parish and not of the city for a Parish is to be intended more certain then a city and when a Parish is alledged to be in a city the Visne shall come out of the Parish Alderion and Mans Case 766. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would give his good Will and furtherance to the Marriage the Defendant promised after the Marriage had to give him 20 l. he alledged he had given his good Will and that he did further it but did not show particularly how yet the Court held it to be a good consideration and adjudged the Action did lie Savage and Brookes Case 767. Upon an Indictment of Murder It was Resolved by the Justices that the Queen could not challenge Peremptorilie without shewing cause of her challenge 768. Note It was Resolved by the Justices That if a man buy Corn and converts it to meal and afterwards sells it it is not an ingrossing within the Statute of 5. E. 6. Staffords Case 769. Debt upon Obligation the Condition to make such further assurance as the Council of the Obligee shall Devise The Obligor comes to the Obligee and shews his Council had advised him to make to the Obligee a Lease for years which he required him to do and he refused It was adjudged the Obligation was forfeited otherwife if it were to make such assurance as the Council should devise for then the Council ought to draw and engross it ready to be sealed Plaine and Binds Case 770. Assumpsit 11. Septemb. to deliver certain goods to him if no claime be made to them before 14. September and alledged no claime was made post 11. diem usque 14. Septemb. It was said in stay of Judgment that the Declaration ought to have been that no claim was made after the Assumpsit until the 14. day and not post 11. diem The Court adjudged the Declaration good because the
Plaintiff that the Action did not lye Vide this Case more at large in Cook 3. part of his Reports Cornwalls Case 869. Quo Warranto for claiming goods of Felonum de se The Defendant said that the Mannors of S. and L in the County of Gloucester were within the Principality of Wales before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and the Kings Writ did not run there and that his Grandfather seised of those Mannors as Lord Marcher used amongst others to have that Liberty of goods of Felons de se and that the Statute of 27 H. 8. which united Wales to England had a Proviso that the Lord Marchers should retain their Franchises to hold Courts to have Waifes and Estrays infangtheef outfangtheef and Felons goods and deduced the Mannors to himself and eo Warranto he claimed to have the good of Felons de se within his Mannors upon which it was demurred the Case is only argued bet not Resolved Ideo Quaere Darcy and Allens Case 870. The Queen by her Letters Patents granted to Darcy the Importation and sole making of playing Cards within the Realm of England for a certain Terme of years A Citizen and Freeman of the Company of Haberdashers in London Cards beings Merchantable Commodities brought Cards into England and sold them for which Darcy brought his Action of the Case and declared it was to his damage of 2000 l. upon which there was a demur in Law It was in this Case after long and Learned Arguments at length Resolved That the Letters Patents for the sole making of playing Cards within the Realm was void because it being a Mechanical Trade it was contrary to the Liberty and to the prejudice of the Subject 2. That the dispensation or sole License to have the Importation of Cards was a Monopoly and so void by the Law See Coo. 11. pt the Case of Monopolies Garrard and the Dean and Chapter of Rochesters Case 871. The Dean and Chapter by deed under their Common Seal granted to the King the Mannor of S. in exchange for other Lands the deed was made without a Letter of Attorney but they acknowledged it to be their deed in their Chapter house before I. S. Attorney of the Court of Augmentations who brought it into Court and it was there enrolled with a Memorandū that the enrolment was such a day which was a moneth before the date of the deed In this Case it was Resolved 1. That the acknowledgment of the deed in the Chapter house was sufficient without doing it by Attorney 2. That the Attorney of the Augmentation might take the acknowledgment of a Deed out of Court he being a Judge of the Court. 3. That the enrolment of the deed before the date of it was not void as to make the deed void because it was only the Misprision of the Clark which shall not make the deed void Prine and Allingtons Case 872. A Capias ad satisfaciend ' was 2. July delivered in Holborne to the Sheriff of C. he the same day made his Warrant to his Bailiffs but afterwards the same day there came a Supersedeas to the Sheriff the Bailiffs not having notice of it took the party in Execution who escaped and they retook him upon which false Imprisonment was brought It was adjudged the Action did lye for the retaking of him was not Lawfull because the Authority of the Sheriff was determined by the Supersedas Yet the Court held the Bailiffs were excused in this Case and no action of Debt upon the escape did lye because they had no notice of the Supersedas Webster and Allens Case 873. A Copyholder where the custome was to demise for three Lives demised to one for life the Remainder to such a one as he should marry and the first Son of his body Resolved that both the Remainders were void but the estate for his own life good Penny and Cores Case 874. Debt upon Obligation for payment of 8 l. the Defendant pleaded payment of 5 l. before the day and acceptance of it in satisfaction of the 8 l. It was adjudged a good plea. The Queen and Bishop of Peterboroughs Case 875. A Baronesse which was a Widdow retained two Chaplains they purchased Dispensation the Baronesse was married before they accepted double Benefices It was adjudged they might after take two Benefices because the marriage was no discharge of their Service but if the Baronesse dye before they accept the Benefices they cannot afterwards take two Benefices within the Statute of 21 H. 8. Ward and Lakins Case 876. In a Replevin the Plaintiff declared of the taking of two Heifors apud W. tali die and did not say in quodam loco vocato c. and for that cause the Declaration was held to be insufficient Scarles Case 177. Debt against an Excecutor by Original he pleaded a Recovery in the Court of I. and that ultra he had not goods the Recovery was after the Teste of the Original but the Defendant avered that he had not notice of the Original It was holden by the Court a good plea but if a man be sued upon an Obligation and he will pay another debt after without suit if he have notice of the first suit Devastavit in an Execuror Gregory and Harrisons Case 878. Resolved Ejectione firme doth not lye of a Copyhold if the Plaintiff doth not declare the Custome Lease and Ejectment 879. A Woman recovered Dower in the Common pleas and had a Writ to the Sheriff to put her in possession of the same The Sheriff returned the Writ that he delivered her 84. Acres and that she had entred into 24. Acres parcel thereof and accepted of the same Resolved it was a good bar to her although it was a lesse quantity then the 3. part of the Land mentioned in the Record Aoliffe and Archdales Case 780. Resolved in this Case If a man be bounden to pay money for the Meat Drink and Apparel of an Infant and pay it and take a Bond of the Infant to repay the money such a Bond is void and the Infant shall avoid it for Nonage Broke and Smiths Case 881. It was adjudged in this Case that where a man by a Deed was to discharge Lands from all Incumbrances and before the sealing and delivery of the Deed there is Memorandum endorsed that it should not extend to such an Incumbrance It was Resolved the Endorsement is an explanation of the Deed and made parcell of it and a suit upon an Obligation to discharge Incumbrances shall not extend to the Incumbrances mentioned upon the endorsement of the Deed. Yate and Goths Case 882. A. was indebted to B. who dyed Intestate his Wife took Letters of Administration and brought debt and had Judgment and after dyed Intestate It was adjudged that an Administrator de bonis none of the first Intestate could not sue forth Execution upon the Judgment but is put to a new action of debt Swelman and Cuts Case 883. A Lease was made for years upon
for Life the Remainder to his Son T. and L. his wife if they have Issue male and if it shall please God to send them Issue Male then it to be reserved and put out for the benefit of such Sons or one of them and died The wife entred as Legatee and died and after T. and L. had Issue Male. It was Resolved that the Issue Male should have the Term and was not restrained to any Term to be born in the Life of the wife and it is a good Devise to the Issue Male though the Term be not expresly devised to the Issue Male. Curtyes Case 1081. Assault and Battery by husband and wife against the Defendant a Constable and two others The Defendant justified that the wife was presented in the Leet to be a common Scold and he Steward made a Warrant to the Constable to punish her according to Law and the Defendants went to the Plaintiffs house to execute the Warrant and the wife assaulted the Constable wherefore he commanded the other Defendants to lay hands upon her which they molliter did It was holden by the Justices to be a good justification although they neither shew the day when the Leet was holden nor that the Plaintiffs house was within the Jurisdiction of the Leet nor shewed the Warrant of the Stewards for that these were all but Inducements to the Justification Herbert and Binghams Case 1082. Error to reverse a Fine because the Writ of Covenant bare teste after the Dedimus potestatem the Defendant pleaded the Land descended to him within age and prayed his age Iâ— was Resolved by the whole Court he should have his age because he was Terre-tenant otherwise he should not have his age in Error Harvyes Case 1083. In Dower Judgment was given by default Error assigned that the Tenant was within age Adjudged no Error for age is not grantable in savorem dotis 1084. A Justice of Peace recorded a Force but did not Fine or commit the Offenders It was adjudged that in such case the Record of the Force was void and the Offenders upan that Record cannot be afterwards Fined nor Imprisoned Moody and Garnons Case 1085. A man made a Lease for years of Land part Fee-simple and part in Lease for years rendring Rent and if it was behind 40. days it should be lawful to restrain and if there should not be sufficient then to reenter Resolved it was not any condition because restraint is not limited to any thing which should be restrained as in Land or chattel and it shall not be taken to distrain and also because no person is expressed who should reenter Caries and Franklyns Case 1086. A seised in Fee made a Feoffment to I. S. Habendum to him and the Heirs of his body to the use of him his Heirs and Assigns It was adjudged he was Tenant in tail because the use to him his Heirs and Assignes shall be intended such Heirs which he had limited before which are Heirs of his Body Buckham and Dendriges Case 1087. Debt upon Obligation The Defendant pleaded to the Jurisdiction that he was a Tinner and pleaded the Grant of King Edward the First that the Tinners of Cornwall should be sued for contracts rising within the Liberty of the Stanneries and not elsewhere and the contract upon which the Debt was brought did arise within the Liberties c. It was Resolved a good Plea but then he must show the Patent or Charter Barrey and Perins Case 1088. Debt upon Obligation The condition was if the Obligor stands to the Arbitrament of four men so as the same be made by four or three of them c. then the Obligation to be void the Arbitrament was made by three It was Resolved the Arbitrament was good for upon consideration of all parts of the Submission the intent appears that four or three might make the Arbitrament and Arbitraments shall be taken by Equity so as all parts may stand Mary Powel and Hermans Case 1089. A sentence was in the Ecclesiastical Court that upon a Contract the Defendant should Marry the Plantiff he did not do it for which cause he was Excommunicated The Defendant Appealed to the Delegaties which was remised to the first Court who sentenced him againe and there also he was excommunicated for not performance of the Sentence He Appealed to the Audience and then had absolution He was taken by a Capias Excom upon the first excommunication upon an Habeas Corpus It was Resolved that the absolution for the Latter had not purged the first Excommunication quia Ecclesia decepta fuit 2. That the Appeal did not suspend the Excommunication although it might suspend the Sentence Don Diego Serviente de Acune and Giffords Case 1090. The Plantiff Embassador for his Master the King of Spaine recovered in an Action upon the Case the Defendant brought Error and removed the Record and then upon the second Scire fac the Bail brought in the body of the Defendant Resolved 1. That the removing of the Record did not so stop the Court that they could not accept of the body of the Defendant in Execution 2. Resolved that the body might be accepted only upon the first Scire fac and not upon the second Roe and Ledshams Case 1091. In False imprisonment in the Stannary Court The Defendant said the imprisonment was at Totnes out of the Jurisdiction Issue being upon it the Viâ—ne was from Totnes and not de Corpore Comitatus and adjudged good upon Error brought Moyslyn and Pierces Case 1092. The Plantiff recovered 200l dammage against the Defendant in B. R. in Assault and Battery and had the body of the Defendant in Execution The Defendant brough Audita Querela in Chancery that the principal had paid the money and thereupon had upon Sureties found a supersedeas to the Sheriff commanding him to discharge the Plantiff out of Execution but the Sheriff did not obey it He brought Habeas Corpus in B. R. and had another Audita Querela and prayed he might be bayled but ' the court would not grant it without Affidavit of payment of the money Coke Chief Justice said upon a Judgement in another Court Audita Querela did not lie in Chancery Eliz. Wilmots Case 1093. She brought Trespasse by the name of a Widdow the Defendant said she was a Feme Covert viz. the Wife of I. Wilmot who was living at Lisborn in Pertugall The Plea was disallowed by the Court for impossibility of Tryall Simonds Case 1094. Trespase for Batterie and entring his Close in B. The defendant justified the entry because it was a Copyhold within the Mannor of W. in W. and to the Battery pleaded Not guilty upon which the Issue was joyned The visne was de B. de Manerie de W. in W. It was Objected it ought to have been of B. only where the Batterie was also de Manerio de W. in W. is double and uncertain But the Court held the visne good because the Custom might
when the Vendee had once cut down the Woods and Underwoods that he could not cut them again if Woods were standing and growing notwithstanding the words in the Grant viz. To Have c. for the life of the said A. Wilson and Wise Case 56. In Trespass for taking of his Cow The Defendant justified that he was seised and held of I. S. as of his Mannor of C. by Fealty rent suit of Court of I. S. And that within the said Mannor the Custom was That the Lord of the Mannor time out of mind c. after the death of every Tenant of any Messuage or Tenements of the said Mannor dying seised used to seise the best Beast of the Tenants found within the Mannor for an Heriot and if the Tenant had no Beast or if it were esloyned out of the Mannor before the Lord seized it Then the Lord had used to seise the best Beast Levant and Couchant upon the Messuage Lands and Tenements It was demurred upon the Custom and it was adjudged that the Custome was void and unreasonable and Judged for the Plaintiff 57. An Infant by his Prochin Amy brought a Scire facias to execute a Plea by Fine limited to his Grandmother The Defendant prayed that the Attainder might demur Resolved it should not But if the Defendant had pleaded the Deed of the Ancestour of the Infant in Barre there the Plea should have stayed 3 Eliz. Austin and Bakers Case 58. Attaint was brought into the Common Pleas upon the Statute of 23 E. 3. cap. 3. against the Executors of I. S. and the Terre Tenants and adjudged it was well brought although the Statute is that the Attaint shall be between the Parties of the first Judgement 59. A Subsidy is granted by Parliament That every one who expends in Land above 20 s. shall pay A man is assessed and before payment he dyes the Lands in the hands of the Heir shall be charged with it because it is a Duty upon Record and the Land chargeable with it 60. Judgement being against two upon an Avowry in Replevin They brought an Attaint depending which one of them dyed It was adjudged that the Writ should abate and it differs from the Case of Nonsuit for the Nonsuit is the Judgement of the Court that the Heir may proceed in Suit but when one is dead it is not so for then no act is done by the Court. 61. Note It was resolved That after a Verdict given it is no Plea for to say that the Jurors did eat and drink mean between the Court and their Verdict given but such Exception ought to be before the Verdict given 62. A Lease for years the Remainder for Life the Reversion in Fee Lessee for years committed Waste he in Remainder for Life dyed It was holden by the Justices That he in the Reversion in Fee should have an Action of Waste for waste done before the death of him in the Remainder because that the mean Remainder was the Cause that he could not have the Action at the first but when that Estate is ended the Action is maintenable because it was to the dis-inheritance of him in the Remainder in Fee 63. Tenant in Dower had power to cut down the Trees growing upon the Land and she covenanted with him in the Reversion that it should be lawfull for him every year to cut down 20. Trees and afterwards she cut down and destroyed all the Trees It was the opinion of the Justices That an Action of Covenant did lye against her and it was agreed by them That if a Covenant be that it shall be lawfull for the Covenantee to take the Trees and sell them or imploy them to his own use That in that Case the Covenantor cannot cut down the Trees because he hath given a propriety in the Trees to the Covenantee Mich 2 Eliz. 64. Trespass The Case was A man made a Lease for years of Lands a Stranger entred upon the Land let and cut down Trees growing and made them Tymber and carryed unto the Land where the Trespass is supposed and then gave the Timber to the Plaintiff and the Defendant entred into the Land and took the Timber It was the opinion of the Justices That in all Cases where a thing is taken wrongfully and altered in form If yet that which remains is the Principal part of the Substance the Notice of it is not lost and therefore if a man takes Trees and makes Boards of them The Owner may retake them quia major pars substantiae remanet and so in the principal Case But if an House had been made of the Timber there it had been otherwise 65. Father and Son made a Feofment in Fee with VVarranty the Father dyed The Feoffee impleaded brought a Warrantia Chartae against the Son unde Chartam Patris sui habet cujus haeres ipse est and in his Count shewed the Deed was made by them both It was the Opinion of the Justices the Count was agreeable to the VVrit and that the VVarranty against the Son was double the one of his Father the other of himself and that each of them warranted the whole so the Action well brought 66. Resolved by the Justices If Lessee for Life makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Reversion and dyeth within the Term the Lease for years is determined But if one who hath nothing in the Lands makes a Lease for years and afterwards purchaseth the Lands and dyes if it be by Indenture his Heir is estopped to avoid the Lease 67. Two Copartners are one grants her Part and warrants that the Grantee shall have and hold it in common without partition It is a void Warranty because it is against Law 68. A Lease was made to Husband and VVife for years Provided that if the possession of the Lands came to the hands of any ther than the Husband and VVife and their Issues then upon tender of 100 l. it shall be lawful for the Lessor to reenter the Husband dyed the Wife took an other Husband the Lessor tendred the 1000 l. It was the greater opinion of the Justices That the Condition was not broken because that the second Husband was not possessed by vertue of the Lease but in the right of his Wife But the Court doubted of it It was adjourned 68. A Capias ad satisfaciend was awarded and an Extent and between the date of the Writ and before the Sheriff took the Inquisition the Defendant sold his Goods It was the Opinion of the Justices That the Sheriff might extend the Goods which were sold and it was said That if the Tenant in a Precipe allien after the date of the Writ and before the Retorn yet he continnes Tenant to the Action 69. Note it was holden by the Justices That if an Infant for Monies by Indentures bargain and sells Lands and afterwards levyes a Fine Sur Conusans de droit with Proclamations the Indenture is not void but voidable and
which they have otherwise not 245. Tenant in Tail disseiseth the Discontinuee and Levyeth a Fine and the proclamation passes but the Discontinuee during the proclamation makes claime and after the Tenant in Tail dyes and the Discontinuee enters It was the opinion of the Justices that the Issue in Tail was barred by the Fine and in this Case it was said That if the Lord entreth upon his Tenant and enfeoffs a stranger and the Tenant Reenters he avoids the Disseisin and estate but the seignoury is not revived but extinct Pasch 20. Eliz. Jackson and Darceys Case 246. Tenant in Tail the Remainder to the King levyeth a Fine with Proclamation It was holden it shall binde the Issue notwithstanding the saving in the Statute of 32. H. 8. for that here is not any Reversion in the King but a Remainder of which the Statute speaks nothing but yet this Fine doth not devest the Remainder out of the Kâ—ng but the Conusee shall have a Fee determinable upon the Tail 247. The Master takes an Obligation of his Apprentice that he shall not use his Trade within 4. years in the Town of N. where his Master dwells and he is an Apprentice It was holden the Obligation was not good not should binde the Apprentice 248. A man hath a Warren which extends into 3. Townes and by deed makes a Lease of it for years Rendering rent and after grants the Reversion in one of the Townes to another and the Lessee Attornes It was the opinion of the Justices That the grantee should have no part of the Rent nor the Granter because no Covenant can be apportioned Duland and Cleypooles Case 248. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. of Tillage That the Defendant had Converted 300. Acres of arable Lands to Pastures and that the Conversion hath continued from 15. Eliz. to 20. Eliz. The Defendant as to the Conversion pleaded Not guilty and as to the Continuance the general pardon of 23. Eliz. upon which it was demurred It was argued that the Condition did not extend to the Continuance of the said conversion It was said That if A be seised of arable Lands and converts the same to pasture and so converted Leaseth it to B. who continues it in pasture as he found it he shall be charged by the Statute And Note the words of the Statute are Conversion permitted and Conversion continued is Conversion permitted and the Statute doth not punish only the Conversion but the continuance of it One the other side It was said That the Conversion and the continuance thereof are 2. several things by it self and so the Conversion being only excepted the Continuare thereof is within the Pardon Quaere the Case was adjorned Term. Pasc 24. Eliz. Leeke and Grevells Case 249. Information upon the Statute of 5. Eliz. for converting and using of 2000. Acres of arable into pasture The Defendant said and justified as to 800. Acres That the Queen by Deed under her Great Seal Licensed him to enclose the Mannor of Weston and Welford in the County of Gloucester and to make a Park so as it was not within any Forrest and to Convert and use the Land inclosed of tillage into pasture pro sustentatione ferarum Damarum averiorum suorum by which he enclosed them and converted the Tillage into pasture for the Sustentation of his beasts Upon which it was demurred It was argued that the License was not good because the Statute of 5. Eliz. was to continue but till the beginning of the next Session of Parliament at which time the Statute ended and was not revived till Anno 13. Eliz. so as in Anno 9. when the License was there was not any Statute to prohibit the Conversion of tillage into Pasture and therefore the License in 9. Eliz. could not dispense with the Statute of 13. Eliz. and the Statute of 13 Eliz. did not make such reviver of the Statute of 5. Eliz. as made mean Acts good by any Relation Quaere the Case was not adjudged but adjorned Dolman and the Bishop of Salisburies Case 250. Quare Imp. brought the Defendent pleaded the Statute of 21. H. 8. Cap. 13. of Pluralities that the last Incumbent had a Benifice with Cure of the value of 8 l. and took another Benefice and was Inducted 1 Eliz. upon which the Queen did present the Defendant by Lapse The Plaintiff shewed the Proviso in the Statute of 25. H. 8. that Chaplains qualified might purchase Dispensations and take 2. Benefices and that 1 Eliz. before the Parliament he purchased a Dispensation from the Pope and after he took the second benefice and dyed The question was whether the Pope before the Statute of 25 H. 8. might grant dispensations It was Resolved he could not for that the Kings of England had been Soveraigns within their Realms of the Spiritualties and the Justices held that the dispensation in question was made 1 Eliz and so out of the Statute of 25 H. 8. and that this dispensation to retain a second benefice was against the Statute of 21 H. 8. Lacyes Case 251. In a scire facias upon a Recognizance for not appearing before the Justices of Assise at York the Defendant pleaded that after the Recognizance taken a Commission issued to the Admiral and others to hear and determine Treasons Felonies c. done within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty and that the Commissioners sent to Arrest him before the day of his Appearance because he had mortally wounded a Man upon Scarborow sands if within the flux and reflux of the Sea of which wound he dyed at Scarborow and that thereupon he was Arrested and detained in prison till after the day of Appearance and afterwards was Indicted and arraigned of the said Felony before the Commissioners The Court inclined to be of opinion that the Arrest was a sufficient excuse of his appearance because the Recognizance is a duty to the Queen and the Commission is the Act of the Queen and all that the Commissioners do is by authority from the Queen and in her person and shall be accounted her Act and then when she her self is a cause that the Defendant could not appear that she should not have benefit of the Recognizance 252. The Condition of an Obligation was That if the Obligor pay at or before the 25th day of March he tenders the money the 24th day It was the opinion of Anderson that if he tender the money the last instant of the 24th day he saveth his Bond But the other Justices held the contrary because the word before is not to have any Construction but the Obligor shall be admitted to pay it before by agreement only of the Obligee Quaere 253. A man seised of 3. Mannors in Fee of the value of 300 l. Covenanted in Consideration of the Mariage of his daughter that he would suffer 20 l. yearly to discend come and remain to his daughter and her Husband and the Heirs of their bodies It was the opinion
That if the Bargainor paid a certain sum of money at a certain day and place that the Bargainee and his Heirs would stand seised of the Land to the use of the Bargainor and his Heirs and entred Recognizance to performe the Covenants The Bargainor paid the money before the day at another place and after day tendred a deed to be sealed by the bargainee containing the receit of the mony and also a Release of all his right in the Land the Bargainee refused to Seal it The Court doubted if by the Refusal the Recognizance was forfeited because he was not bound to Seal the Deed not being pertinent to the Assurance of the Land But the Court conceived that the acceptance of the money before the day was sufficient to excuse the forfeit of the Recognizance Isams Case 480. Three Women and the Husband of one of them recovered Debt in C. B. the Record was removed by Error in B. R. where the Judgment was affirmed the Husband dyed The Women sued forth a Capias against the party without first suing a scire facias It was adjudged that there ought to have been a scire facias first sued forth because the Defendant perhaps had a Release of the Husband who was dead to plead Morgan and Williams Case 481. An Administrator brought debt and declared That Administration was Committed to him by A. B. sacrae Theologiae praefessorem and doth not say loci illius Ordinarium and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Sheffield and Rises Case 482. Assumpsit In consideration that the Plaintiff had submitted himself to the Arbitrament of I. S. the Defendant ad tunc ibidem assumpsit It was said the Action did not lye because it was upon a Consideration executed But adjudged for the Plaintiff because the words ad tunc ibidem extend to the time of the Assumpsit Sir John Perrots Case 483. In Intrusion against the Lady Dorothy Perrot and James Perrot the Case though very long was thus in effect Sir John Perrot 26 Eliz. before his Attainder seised of diverse Mannors by Indenture tripartite Reciting that whereas he had 2. Sons viz. F. and W. by diverse venters for Love and affection which he bore to his said 2. Sons and such other Issue male as should be of his body and for the Love which he boâ—e to I. his reputed Son and other Considerations Covenanted that he his Heirs and Assigns and all other persons who had Interest in the said Mannors should stand seised thereof to the use of himself for life without impeachment of Wast and after to the use of W. for life and after to the use of the first Son of the said first Son for life and after to the use of all the Sons and Issues male of the said W. by his first Wife which he should Marry one after the other in such Course and forme as they successively ought to discend by due course of Law for the terme of the lives of the said Sons and Issues males and for want of such Issue Then he limited the remainder in use to F. for life and after to his first Son for life and so further as the same was limited to W. and for want of such Issue to I. and for want of all such Issue the remainder to himself and his Heirs and Assignes There was a Proviso for the making of Joyntures to the Sonnes Wife Proviso That Sir John by any Writing signed and sealed with his hand and seal might revoke alter change any use estate or limitation in the said tripartite Indenture that then the said Sir John and all other seised and all assurances aforesaid should be of such estate or in such manner as by such Revocation enlargement or limitation should be declared W. dyed without Issue male Sir John Perrot afterwards 35 Eliz. by writing under his hand and seal did limit the Lady Dorothy his Wife the Defendant for her Joynture a third part of the Mannors in 3. equal parts to be divided 36 Eliz. T. dyed seised in possession and Dorothy entred and took the 3d. part of the profits of the said Mannor and averred the Feoffment was by writing with and under the proper hand of Sir John and traversed the Intrusion upon which it was demurred There were many points in this Case both upon the pleading and matter in Law 1. If all the estates perpetually limited in Freehold for life to all the Sons were void or which of them were good which void 2. If Sir John in making of the Feoffment had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the Proviso 3. If Sir John in the Assignment of the Joynture to Dorothy his Wife which is the principal title by which she Justifies had duly pursued the Authority limited to him by the other Proviso for making of Joyntures The Case was very Learnedly oftentimes argued at large and Tr. 38 Eliz. It was adjudged for the Queen against the Defendants not upon the matters in Law but upon a poynt of pleading only For it was said by the Barons that they did not take plea sufficient that he did enfeoffe such person Habend to them and their Heirs to the uses in the Indentutres unlesse it had been pleaded the Feoffment was by writing or so averred to be which shall not be intended so to be without special pleading or averment of it King and Hunts Case 484. Tenant in Tail enfeoffed his Son of full age and afterwards disseised and levyed a Fine with Proclamation before the last Proclamation the Son entred and made a Feoffment the Father and Son dyed the Feoffee made a Lease for years to a stranger and dyed seised The Issue in Tail brought a Formedon and recovered by faint pleader It was adjudged in this case because it appeared by the plea That the Fine was levyed to the Lessee for years himself and not averred it was to other uses the Terme was extinct and so he could not falsifie the Recovery East and Hardings Case 485. Note It was adjudged by the whole Court in this Case That if a Copyholder cut down Trees without a Custome it is a forfeiture unlesse it be for Reparations Barwicks Case 486. Intrusion the Case was That the Queen made a Lease to Barwick of a Mannor for 21. years he surrendered the same to the Queen Anno 23. and the Queen in Consideration of the surrender granted him the Mannor a die Confectionis of the Patent for the life of I. S. and the Lessee pur auter vye devysed the same to him for 40. years and averred the life of I. S. The Plaintiff said That after the Lease made by the Queen to him for 21. years that he granted all his estate in a part of the Mannor to a stranger and afterwards in Consideration of the surrender the Queen made the Lease pur auter vye Resolved the 2d Lease made by the Queen was void because all in the first Lease was not surrendered and so the Queen
condition that if there should be default made of Reparations upon Warning given within 6. Months the Lessor to reenter Resolved the warning in this Case must be given to the person and not at the place and both to the person of the Lessee as the person of his Assignee Wilmot and Knowles Case 884. A. and his Wife seised of Land to them and the Heirs of the Husband bargained and sold them to I. S. upon Condition if they or any of them or the Heirs or Assignes of the Husband pay 500 l. at such a day to I. S. it shall be Lawfull for the Husband and Wife and the Heirs of the Husband to enter and to hold in their former estate and that after the payment all Fines and Assurances should be to the use of the Husband and his Heirs and to no other use A Fine was Levyed before the enrollment of the Deed the Husband dyed having a daughter married to I. D. who in the right of his Wife payed the money and entred The Defendant in the Right of the Wife of A. entred It was adjudged his entry was Lawfull because upon the point the use was revested in the Wife as it was before the Fine and the last part of the Fine declaring the use to the Husband and his Heirs was void Atkins and Longviles Case 885. King H. 8. Anno. 33. of his Raign bargained and sold Land to the Ancestor of the Defendant without any words of grant It was adjudged it was good enough by the Expresse words within the Statute of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries which makes all Patents Indentures and writings made by the King after 4. Feb. Anno 27. of Monastery Land to be made within 3. years after the Act to be good 886. In Trespas the Record of Nisi Prius was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 25 Eliz. whereas the Declaration was of a Trespas 12 Jan. 45 Eliz. found for the Plaintiff I was adjudged the Plaintiff could not have Judgment nor the Record of Nisi Prius amendable by reason of this variance Fitzwilliams Case 887. A. suffered a Recovery to the use of himself and his Wife with a Remainder to their Son Provided it shall be Lawfull for him and his Wife by their joynt Deed sealed and delivered before three Credible Witnesses to alter change revoke determine and make void any use estate or estates limited in the said Deed and to limit new uses and from thence forth the Recovery shall be to the new uses A. and his Wife made a Deed and by the same declare That it was their intent to alter change and determine revoke and avoid all the former uses to their Son and thereupon without more words they limited new uses It was adjudged it was a good revocation of the old uses and a good limitation of the new uses Vide Cook 6. part 33. Brown and Nichols Case 188. It was Resolved in this Case that a Conduit to carry Water to an house shall passe with the house by the word Appertenant and the owner may come upon the Land of another to mend it so it be done at a convenient time and that without either Prescription or Grant Pudsey and Neusons Case 889. The Condition of an Obligation was that if the Obligor make all reasonable acts c. which shall be for assurance c. to be required by the Obligee before sueh a day c. Adjudged a general request is sufficient and the Obligor at his perill is to make it otherwise if it had been to be devised by the Obligee or his Councell there he must shew that he had required such a particular Assurance viz. a Fine or a Feoffment c. Milliner and Robinsons Case 890. Ejectione firme A Lease was made by two Coparteners the Declaration was Quod demiserunt ruled not good because it is a several Lease of each of them or his part The Case further was A. devised his Land to his brother I. and if he dyed having no Son that the Land should Remain to W. for life and if he dyed having no Son to Remain to the right Heirs of the Devisor Resolved I. had an estate Tail but W. had it but for life or at least to his Heirs Females for having no Son is meer Contingent Frewwater and Rois Case 891. Tenant in Tail the Remainder in Tail Remainder to the right Heirs of Tenant in Tail Tenant in Tail Covenanted to stand seised to the use of himself and his Heirs untill marriage and after to the use of himself for life the Remainder to his Wife for life with divers Remainders over in Tail and after he suffered a Recovery and dyed It was adjudged it was a bar of the Ancient Tail because by the Covenant to stand seised there was not any alteration of the estate of the Tenant in Tail 892. A Parson sued for Tythes of Fodder the Parishioners prescribed in Non decimando because the Fodder was for their Cattell which manured their Land It was holden no good Prescription but it was agreed Tythes should not be paid for Agistments nor for Wood for hedgwood to enclose the Corne nor for Fewell Rye and Fuliambs Case 893. A. was divorced from his Wife for Incontinency he after took another Wife living the first Wife Adjudged the second Marriage was void because the Divorce was but à Mensa Thoro and not à Vinculo Matrimonii Ward and Sudmans Case 894. The Case was The Bishop of Exeter in Consideration of service and other Considerations gave Lands to T. his Servant and to S. his Kinswoman in Tail Quaere if it was a Joynture within 11 H. 7. because no Consideration was expressed but service and the Consanguinity is but a Consideration implyed The Court doubted of it The Case was not Resolved Errors Short and Hellyars 895. Trespas Quare clausum fregit blada tritici ad valent ' 40 l. messuit conculcavit consumpsit nec non herbam ad valent ' centum solid ' pedibus ambulando conculcavit Consumpsit found for the Plaintiff Error assigned 1. Because the Venire facias was returned upon Sunday which was not dies juridicas 2. Because he supposed the Continuance of the Trespas inâ—depasturatione herbae whereas the Trespas is not supposed in the pasturing but only in conculcatione consumptione herbae pedibus ambulando The Court held the first was amendable by the Statute of 18 Eliz and for the second they said it was but surplusage Sir George Hennage and Curtis Case 896. Trespas for Trespas done in his Close in H. the Defendant justified and prescribed by reason there was a Common Foot way from H. thorow the said Close unto another Foot way from H. to K. in the same County Issue was upon the Prescription the Venire facias was only of H. whereas it ought to have been of H. and K. and for that cause the Judgment was reversed Holt and Tilcocks Case 897. Assumpsit against the Defendant
upon the case did not lie in such Case Bowes and Powletts Case 924. In the Kings Bench the case was A. and B. were Indebted to the Queen by Recognizance 500 l. C. and D. were indebted in 200 l. to F. by Obligation F. was indebted to A. 200 l. F. at the request of A. assigned the Debt of 200 l. due from C. and D. to the Queen by Deed enrolled in part of satisfaction of the 500 l. due to the Queen by A. B. A. afterwards for his discharge of the 200 l. against the Queen prosecuted Suit in the Exchequer against C. for the levying of the 200 l. of the goods and Chattels of C. C. in consideration that A. would forbear to prosecute any Process against the said C. till Hill Term following promised to pay A. 200 l. and 20 l. to buy him a Gelding and in an Action upon the case brought for it in B. R. upon non Assumpsit It was found for the Plaintiff there and Damages and Judgment Error was brought in the Exchequer and the Judgment upon the body of the Declaration was reversed because the consideration was not lawfull nor sufficient for the surceasing of a Suit was no discharge of the Debt nor was it lawfull to have recompence for the forbearing or surceasing of a Debt which was due to the Queen Hinson and Burridges Case 925. Action upon Assumpsit in B. R. In consideration the Plaintiff would sell and deliver to I. S. the Defendants Factor at the request of the Defendant 200 Hog-labms to the use of the Defendant he promised he would pay so much mony to the Plaintiff as should be agreed betwixt the Plaintiff and I. S. and alledged he delivered them to I. S. and I. S. and the Plaintiff agreed for 40 l. price to be paid at certain dayes since past and the Defendant had not paid the mony It was found for the Plaintiff and Judgment Errour brought and assigned 1. That the Contract was the Contract of the Defendant himself and Debt did lye not Assumpsit Resolved the sale was to I. S. and the use is but a Confidence which gave not property to the Defendant so that Debt did not lye against him but Assumpsit 2. Error no place is alledged where the Plaintiff and I. S. agreed of the price and day of payment which is traversable The Court held it good enough because the Defendant pleaded Non Assumpsit and a verdict was given But the Court said it had been a good cause of Demurrer Palmer and Humfreys Case 926. Ejectione firme de una pecia terrae vocat M. furlong una pecia terrae vocat Ashbrokee uno Gardino vocat Minching-Garden quae omnes singulae parcellae terrae jacent in W. It was assigned for Error that Pecia terrae is uncertain and so the Declaration not good And 2. Because no place certain is alledged in which the Garden is and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Matthew and Matthewes Case 927. Assumpsit in B. R. whereas the Testator was endebted to the Plaintiff 35 l. The Defendant being his Excecutor in consideration the Plaintiff would give him day promised to pay the money Found there for the Plaintiff and Judgment upon Error brought the Judgment Reversed Because the consideration was not sufficient because the Defendant was not by Law bound to pay the money after the death of the Testator and giving day to pay that which he was not bound to pay was no sufficient Consideration Edmunds and Bufkins Case 928. Debt in B. R. and declared the Dean and Chapter of W. demised the Rectory to A. for 60. years which by mean Conveyance came to F. who demised it to C. for 20. years rendring Rent C. demised it by his will to D. 10. of the last years and afterwards dyed possessed D. entred and granted his Interest to Edmunds F. demised the residue of the Terme to S. his Wife and Executrix S. married Bufkin they brought Debt and had Judgment Error was brought and assigned that C. the first Lessee of F. demised 10. of the last years to D. and it was alledged that the demisor made not any Executor or that the devisee did enter by the assent of the Excecutor nor that he was possessed by virtue of the demise but generall that he entred after the death of the devise and for these Causes the Judgment was reversed Paramour and Pains Case 929. Action upon the Case in B. R. and declared in Consideration the Plaintiff had sold to the Defendant 14. Cowes for 34 l. and 4. Oxon for 16 l. the Defendant promised to pay cum requisitus esset Found for the Plaintiff the Judgment was reversed because the Consideration was not sufficient but Debt lay upon the Contract and not Assumpsit Plaine and Bagshawes Case 930. Debt in B. R. against B. Executor of I. S. and demanded 47 l. 8 s. 8 d. monetae Flandriae attingent ' to 40 l. 12 s. 6 d. English money The Defendant pleaded fully Administred the Jury found Assets and Judgment there that recuperet debitum suum praedict ' damna sua praedict ' Errour brought and assigned for that the Jurours did not inquire of the value of Flanders money and for that cause the Judgment was reversed for although the Plaintiff did affirme the Flanders money did attain to 40 l. 12 s. 6 yet it is no Warrant to the Court to adjudge it so unlesse found by the Jury Stafford and Powlers Case 931. Error was brought of a Judgment in an action upon the Case in B. R. for words the words were viz. One W. Web being arrested as accessary for stealing his own goods Mr. Stafford knowing thereof discharged the said Web by an agreement of 3 l. to which Mr. Stafford was party whereof 30 s. was to be paid to Mr. Stafford and was paid to his man by his appointment Error brought It was said the words were not actionable but the Justices held them actionable and the Judgment was affirmed Bordolf and Perry and his Wives Case 932. Debt in B. R. upon an Obligation made by the Wife dum sola fuit the Defendant pleaded Non est factum found for the Plaintiff The Judgment was that the Husband be in misericordia and the Wife Capiatur And it Reversed because it ought be Capiantur against both Penraddock and Erringtons Case 933. Assault and Battery in B. R. against two Defendants and declared of Assault Battery tantas minas de vita sua imposuer ' quod non audebat ire circa negotia They pleaded Deson Assault demesne It was assigned for Error that the Assault of one cannot be the Assault of the other and they ought to have pleaded several pleas the Court held it no Error for that the Assault might be joynt 2. Error because nothing is said to the Minas yet the Judgment was affirmed because Minas is but to enforce the damages and not the substance of the Declaration Wilcocks and Greenes Case 934.
Debt against Executors upon Obligation of 200 l. they pleaded a Recovery by a stranger of 200 l. upon another Obligation and averred it was a just and true Debt ultra which they had not in their hands the Plaintiff said the Recovery was by Covin It was adjudged in B. R for the Plaintiff Error brought and the Judgment reversed for it could not be by Covin if it was a just Debt and the Replication should have been absque hoc it was a just and true Debt Morses and Rosses Case 935. Assumpsit In consideration the Plaintiff would surcease his Suit which he had in Chancery against the Defendant the Defendant promised to save him harmlesse from all actions which should be brought against him for or Concerning a Lease which the Defendant had assigned to him and alledged he surceased his Suit and that a Stranger had brought an action against him in B. R. by reason of the said Lease and the Defendant did not save him harmlesse Judgment being for the Plaintiff in B. R. It was reversed because he did not shew the certainty of the Action brought against him nor that it was for any matter in esse at the time of the promise Wood and Bukleys Case 936. Action upon the Case whereas Wood exhibited his Bill against Buckley in Star Chamber containing he had nusselled Pirats Murtherers and other Malefactors he being a Justice of Peace and Vice-Admiral Wood afterwards in another place having speech with divers concerning as well of the ill carriage of the said Buckley as of the matter in his Bill against Buckley in the Star Chamber said I will Justify every matter therein to be true The Defendant Justified the speaking of the words being examined upon the truth of his Bill before I. S. and I. D. by Command of the Councell and traversed that he spake them at any other place or time upon demur being adjudged for the Plaintiff upon Error brought the Judgment was reversed because no action lying for the exhibiting of the Bill no action lay for saying the words of his Bill were true Sir Henry Berkley and Earle of Pembrooks Case 937. Action upon the Case by the Earl of Pembroke against Sir Henry Berkley and shewed he was seised of the Mannor of S. to which the Office of the Keeper of the Forrest of F. did appertain in Fee and to have omnia bona forfeited within the Forrest fugam facere bis per annum quicquid de hujusmodi fugatione accidere possit and to have Hony Wax mortuum boscum c. appertaining to his Office and the Defendant disturbed him to exercise the said Office The Defendant pleaded a Deed in Tail in Bar made by the Plaintiff In the Deed there was a Proviso viz. Provided alwayes and the said Sir Henry Berkley doth Covenant for him and the Heirs males of his body to and with the said Earl and his Heirs to preserve the game as far as commonly hath been used and that he nor his Heirs males shall cut or sell any woods there except for browse and necessary reparations and the Plaintiff said the Defendant had cut down four Oakes and converted them to his own use and averred they were not for browse nor reparations and that he entred for the forfeiture It was adjudged upon a demur in B. R. for the Plaintiff Error was brought upon the Exchequer Chamber upon the matter in Law that the Proviso was not a Condition but a Covenant but as to that point it was Resolved by all the Justices that the Proviso was a Condition 2. Error was that the damages were assessed entirely for divers things some of them being uncertainly and insufficiently alledged for he prescribed to have omnia bona forisfacta which could not be without Charter also to have de furgatione quicquid acciderit which was also uncertain and also the damages for them ought to have been severally assessed and not entirely The Court held that for that Cause the Judgment was erroneous and for that Cause only the Judgment was reversed Reymer and Grimstones Case 938. Assumpsit In Consideration he at the Defendants request had promised to wash the Defendants linnen and the linnen of his Servants and to provide meat and drink for the Defendant and his Servants the Defendant promised to pay so much money to the Plaintiff when he should require it so as it should not exceed the proportion used in O. for the like time and further declared that in Consideration the Defendant upon accompt between them made was in arrerage to the Plaintiff 18 l. the Defendant promised to pay him the said 18 l. and the Plaintiff shewed for how long time he had washed the Cloathes c. and that he required 8 l. which did not exceed the proportion in O. upon Non Assumpsit found for the Plaintiff and damages severally assessed for the Costs entirely Error was thereupon brought it was the opinion that the first Assumpsit was good and the second void and the Judgment given for the damages and Costs upon the first Assumpsit was good and the Judgment for them affirmed but for the damages assessed upon the second Assumpsit and for the damages de incremento entirely give for both the Judgment was reversed Goodall and Wyatts Case 939. In Ejectione firme The Case was A. made a Feoffment of Lands to B. in Fee upon Condition if A. paid within a year after the death of the Feoffee to his Heirs Executors or Administrators 100 l. that the Feoffment should be void B. made a Feoffment over to C. and dyed and afterwards within the year it was agreed betwixt A. and the Administrator of the Feoffee that the said A. should pay to the Administrator the 100 l. and that the Administrator should repay back all to A. the Feoffee but only 32 l. which was done accordingly and then A. entred into the Lands pretending the Condition was performed it was adjudged in B. R. that his entry was not Lawfull and that this fraudulent and Covenous payment was no performance of the Condition and upon a Writ of Error brought in the Exchequer Chamber all the Justices a greed that the Judgment given in B. R. should be affirmed Vitsey and Fermours Case 940. The King granted Manerium de H. in Parochia de R. omnia terras decimas haereditamenta sua in R A. in the tenur of I. S nec non omnia alia terras tenementa haereditamenta in R praedict ' It was adjudged in B. R. that the Tythes in H. which was a Town within the Parish of R. did passe But upon Errour brought the Judgment was reversed because R. praedict shall be intended R. the Town and not R. the Parish Adams and Dixons Case 941. Assumpsit the Plaintiff was Bail for I. S. in B. R. the Defendant in Consideration that he should pay him the Condemnation promised to deliver to him the Bond made for the principal Debt and a letter of
Presidents cited to that purpose Apsleys Case 1067. He was brought by a Habe as corpus to the Bar It was returned that he was committed by the Court of Chancery for a contempt to the Court Resolved he should be discharged vide 9 Eliz. Astwicks case accordingly vide 13 Jac. Allen and Woods case Allen was committed to the Fleet by the Lord Chancellor for a contempt in not performing of a Decree and upon that Retorn the Court refused to deliver him Deytons Case 1068. He was committed to the Fleet by the High Commissioners for not performing of the Orders in the Common Prayer and for refusing to answer to Articles exhibited by the Commissioners unless he might have a copy of the Articles Resolved he should be delivered because the Statute upon which he was sued in that Court is penal and also because perhapps the High Commissioners had not jurisdiction of the cause Brokes Case 1069. He was committed by the High Commissioners to the Fleet because he refused Alimony to his wife and that being returned upon an Habeas corpus he was delivered Isaack and Clerks Case 1070. Action de Trover and Conversion The case was A recovery was against A. in the Court of E. and a Precept in the nature of a Fieri fac directed to the Defendant Bayliff of the Court who took three Butts of Sack in Execution The Plaintiff came to the Defendant and delivered him 22 l. in a bag as a pledge that the three Butts should be delivered to the Defendant the next Court day there upon Request if the Plaintiff who recovered should not in the mean time be satisfied at the next Court the Butts were not redelivered nor the first Plaintiff satisfied nor any Report made It was Resolved that there was no Conversion in this case for although prima facie Denyer is a conversion of money yet when the mony is delivered as a Pledge it is a special bailment and Denyer in such case is no conversion 2. That the Plaintiff had no cause of Action because the three Butts being not Re-delivered the Defendant might detain the 22 l. and the Bag for ever 3. There needs no request in this case because the Plaintiff at his peril is to cause them to be delivered before he is enabled to have his mony again It was adjudged for the Defendant Ford and Hoskins Case 1071. Action upon the case that the custom of the Mannor of B. was that every Copyholder might name who should have his Copyhold and that the Lord ought to admit the Copyholder so named after the death of the Nominator which the Lord refused to do It was Resolved the action did not lie for that the Nominatee hath no right at all the Interest being in the Lord and the Nominatee hath neither jus ad rem nec in re and he shall not draw an Interest to himself from the Lord against his Will and if one hath the Nomination and another hath the Presentation to a Benefice if he who hath the Presentation will not present an Action upon the case will not lie against him Brownlo Cop and Mitchells Case 1072. Assise against the Defendant for a Disseisin made to the Plaintiff of the profits of the Office of making Supersedeas The King directed his Writ to the Justices reciting that he by his Letters Patent had granted the making of Supersedeas to the Defendant and required the Justices not to proceed Rege inconsulto It was argued that the Writ did not lie because the King had not any title to the thing in demand nor could any prejudice come to the King On the other side it was said That in common Right it belonged to the King to make Grants of Offices Ministerial and Judicial unless another made Title to the same by Charter or Prescription and if the Plaintiff had title to the Office or not it is matter of Title for which the King is to have search in Chancery and if nothing be found for the King against the Prescription made by the Plaintiff then a Procedendo shall issue out of the Chancery otherwise if title be found for the Patentee against the Prescription Afterwards the Supersedeas was allowed by the Court and afterwards the matter was ended by composition Keckwichs Case 1073. It was holden by the Justices If an Infant brings Error to reverse a Fine levyed by him and he is inspected and witnesses produced to prove his Infancy though he dieth after before his full Age his Heir may reverse the Fine Gold and Deaths Case 1074. Debt upon an Obligation the Condition was That if the Apprentice shall lose and embessel any of the Goods of his Master and the Master prove the same to be true by confession or other then if the Obligor pay all Sums as the loss shall amount unto the Obligation to be void In the case the Master brought in the confession of the Apprentice himself under his Hand and Seal It was adjudged that it was a good and sufficient proof and it was holden the proof might be in the Action brought Phelps and Winscombs Case 1075. In False Imprisonment The Question was whether a Constable may make a Deputy to arrest one by a Warrant to him directed by a Justice of Peace the constable himself being sick and whether upon the Defendants pleading in such case of the Statute of 7 Jac. cap. 5. he shall have double costs It was Resolved he may make a Deputy and a Deputy is within the meaning of the Statute for he is a Constable pro tempore Smith and Bulls Case 1076. In Assault and Battery The Defendant justified that the Plaintiff entred his Close and that he molliter imposuit manus upon him It was said he ought to shew what estate he had in the Close and that the Plaintiff came there to eject or disseise him otherwise the Justification is not good 1077. Tenant in Tail made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself and his Heirs and afterwards made a Lease for years rendring rent and died and the Issue accepted the Rent It was adjudged that the acceptance of the Rent did not continue the Lease because the Issue was remitted to the Tail by discent Roe and Woods Case 1078. It was holden by the Court that whereas the name of the Sheriff was not endorsed upon the tales de circumstanubus that was no cause to stay Judgment because the Statute which gives tales doth not provide for such Retorn and also because it is done in the face and view of the Court and of the Judges and therefore not to be doubted but the Sheriff made the Return Luke and Clerks Case 1079. If the Defendant challenge the Array for Consanguinity of the Sheriff which is found against him and after he challenge the Poles Resolved he must shew cause of challenge of every one of them presently Blandford and Blandford Case 1080. The Grandfather possessed of a Term for years devised the same to his Wife