reason the factor may sell the goods without ready money and this is good reason for perchance the goods are of that nature that they will not keep without perishing by which clearly it appears that if I deliver goods to another to Merchandise and to sell he may sell them without ready money but if my factor or Bailiff will sell them to one which he knows wâ—ll prove a Bankrupt without ready money this is not good but secondly he held the custome as it is here alledged not to be good for then the partie shall have no remedy for his money except the factor will go into Spain and sue the Bill and the laws of Merchants are special laws for their benefit and not for their prejudice and this custome as it is alledged is too large but if he had alledged that such Bill taken by the factor shall be as good and effectual to the Mr. as if it had been taken in his own name this had been good besides the custome is not good for it is alledged to be that when the factor had delivered the Bill to the owner of the goods this shall be a discharge to him who was the factor and here is no time set within which this may be delivered and so for ought is shewed it may be delivered 10. years after which may be good and to that which had been said that the laws of Merchants are national laws he denied that for every Kingdome had its proper and peculiar laws and though this is the law of Spain and national to them yet this ought to be reasonable or else it shall not binde and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Hobert and Winch being only present It was ruled that he who had land in a parish who did not inhabit there shall be chargable to the reparation of the Church but not to the buying of ornaments of the Church for that shall be levied of the goods of the parishioners and not of their lands by Sir Henry Yelverton and said to be so formerly adjudged In trespas the Defendant pleads that one such was possessed of a term for years and bring so possessed by his last will and Testament devised that to the Defendant and died after whose death the Defendant entered and was possessed by vertue of the devisee upon which plea the Plantiff demurred generally and Hutton thought this plea prima facie to be good though the Defendant had not expresly alledged that the devisee died possessed but his plea implies that for he had said that he entered by vertue of the devisee and was possessed and this only matter of form and not matter of substance and no cause of general demurrer which Winch also granted that this was also matter of form and not matter of substance Gage against Johnson for his fees GAge brought an action against Iohnson as his servant and Solicitor to the Defendant in a suit in the Kings Bench taking for every Term 3. s. 4 d. for his fees and for this he brought his action of debt and Serjeant Hitcham moved in arrest of judgement and he urged the case of Samuel Leech an Attourney of this Court in an action upon the case brought by him upon a promise to pay so much for the solliciting of a cause of the Defendant and the opinion was that the action will not lie for it is in nature of maintenance for a Solicitor may not lay out money for his Clyent and if an action upon the case will not lie then much less an action of debt and Hobert said that a Councellor may take fees of his Clyent but he may not lay out or expend money for him and the same law of an Attourney for if he did disburse money for him he doubted much what remedy he should have and he further said a servant may follow business for his Mr. and may take money for his labour for if I retain my servant generally he is not bound to follow my suits at law except at his pleasure for that is an extraordinary service and for that if I will say to my servant that if he will follow my business at Westminster I will give him so much for his pains my servant in this case is not without his remedy but if his service is coupled with Soliciting to take money for his pains his opinion was that no action will lie to which the other justices also agreed and they arose Wright against Black before NOw the case of Wright and of Black was moved again and the case was that Wright had brought an action upon the case against Black and Black for that the Defendants intending to make away his good name and to cause him to lose his goods did maliciously and without cause at Norwich in the County of Norfolk prefer a Bill of indictment at the Sessions of peace containing that the Plantiff stole two bundles of fetches and also did cause and entice one I. S. to give in evidence that the indictment was good and true by reason of which he was bound to Answer that at the next Assiles and there he was accquitted and whether the action was maintainable was the question and Attoe argued that the action is maintainable though it is not shewed that the Bill of indictment was found and he vouched a case which was Hill 10. Iac. B. R. Rot. 921. between Whorewood and Cordery and his wife Defendants which case and judgement was after affirmed in the Exchequer Chamber upon a writ of error and the case was that the Plantiff declared that the Defendants intending to take away his good name did charge him to have ravished Dorothie Coxe and maliciously exhibited a Bill of indictment containing that the Plantiff did felloniously ravish the said Dorothie their daughter and did give this in evidence to the Grand jury who found Ignoramus and yet it was adjudged that an action lies and he cited a case the 19. Iac. in B. R. Deney against Ridgy where was only an indictment preferred concerning the stealing of a horse and no more and yet an action lies Hobert chief Iustice said that if seemed to him that it is actionable for this is as great a scandal to give this in evidence to the Grand jury as to publish this upon an Alebench and as the course of Iustice ought not to be stopped so neither ought the good name of man in things which concern his life be taken away without good cause and I have heard that judgement was given another Term for the Plantiff but quere better of that Hoes case HOes seised of land in fee he devised that to his wife for life the remainder of one parcel of that to Thomas his eldest son the remainder of the other parcel to his youngest son in fee and this devised was with proviso that the feme shall pay his legacies and also his will was that in case his wife died before the payment of his debts and legacies
and at that day the Court was of opinion that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for by the rejoynder the Defendant had shewed that he had forfeited the bond though that be another matter then is in the replication and so he shall have judgement super totam materiam according to the judgement in Francis Case Coo. 8. for their the declaration stood good though the Plantiff had not cause of action in the same manner yet because it appeared he had cause of action he shall have judgement Weaver against Best VVEaver against Best in debt for 48. s. in the debet and detinet and for 2. shirts in the detinet only and he declared that the Defendant such a year retained the Plantiff to be his servant in husbandry giving him 48. s. and a shirt by the year and he shewed that he retained him for the next year and he averred that he served him and they were at issue upon nihil debet and the Plantiff had a verdict for him and it was now moved in arrest of judgement by Serjeant Brigman because he had not shewed that his retainer was according to the Statute of the 5th of Eliz. which Statute limitteth the form of there retainer and their wages and other things and he had not shewed the place where service was and also he had joyned two debts in one action one in the debet and detinet the other in the detinet only and Winch Iustice said that the Statute of the 5. Eliz. extends to such as are retained in husbandry and therefore other retainers are left as they were before the Statute at the Common law and this shall be intended to be a retainer according to the Statute if the contrary be not shewed by the other partie for his retainer was for a year and therefore it shall be intended that the wages was appointed by the Iustices and it was also said by the Court that if the justices of the peace in this kinde do neglect to set down the wages yet a servant may bring an Action upon his own contract also it was said that he needs not to shew the place where he served for if he did no service yet if he did not depart it is very good and for the other matter it was clear that he may bring his Action so by several precipes in one writ Thornes case IT was agreed clearly between Thorn and C. that where an obligation is made and the obligor and the obligee conferred about it and the obligor said to the obligee that he had forged this this is actionable for here it refers to a certainty but if he had said to the other thus he was a forger and had forged falsâ— writings no action will lie for the words are to general in that case also it was agreed clearly by the Court the Sheriff may not arrest a man upon a Capias after the time of the return of the writ Grasier against Wheeler Grasier as Executor brought an action of Covenant against Wheeler upon a lease made by the Testator rendring rent and this was made by I. S. and the Defendant covenanted that the lessee should pay the rent and the Plantiff assigned the breach in non-payment of 30. l. to the Testator such a day when it was due and for 10. l. due in his own time and the attorney of the Defendants as to the 10. l. pleaded non sum informatus and as to the other he pleaded that the Defendant paid to the Testator 7. l. in money and a horse in full satisfaction of all the said 30. l and that the Testator accepted that in full satisfaction and the Plantiff said that this was paid to the Testator for another debt absque hoc that he received that in satisfaction of the 30. l. and now Devenport argued that the issue was misjoyned for the issue ought to have been taken upon the payment and not upon the acceptance and he cited Pinnels case Coo. 5. where the payment in full satisfaction ought to be pleaded precisely and he said that he agreed to the case of Nichols Coo. 5. where the issue was joyned upon payment upon a single Bill and found that this was not paid and the Plantiff had judgement but if the issue had been found for the Defendant that had not been aided by the Statute for though it had been paid yet that was no bar Bridgman contrary and he said the difference is where the issue is joyned upon a matter alledged by the adverse partie and they are at issue upon a point which is not material that is aided by the Statute of the 18. Eliz. and where no issue at all is joyned there is not any help Winch Iustice said that this is an issue which will make an end of the matter And at another day this Tearm Serjeant Harvey moved the case again in arrest of judgement because the issue is joyned upon the acceptance which is not material and he cited Fowkes case depending in this Court debt upon an obligation and the Defendant pleaded the acceptance of another obligation in satisfaction which in verity is no bar and issue was taken upon that and it was doubted whether this being insufficient be aided by the Statute or not Bridgman Serjeant said to the contrary and he said as before that because the issue is taken upon the allegation of the Defendant if it is not good yet it is aided by the Statute of 32. H. 8. and Hutton said this is a full issue and as to the traverse said it is a material issue for he pleaded that he accepted them for another thing absque hoc that he accepted them in satisfaction of the 30. l. which is the most proper issue for he said it is clear that he may say that he accepted them for part c. and good and so here The Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore in Dower IT was agreed clearly in Dower between the Countess of Barkshire and Sir Peter Vanlore that if the Tenant plead never seised to have Dower and in verity the husband of the demandant had an estate but that was by disseisin which is avouched by the entrie of the deseissee who had a title paramont this is no title by which she may have Dower though they are at issue upon this plea and also it was agreed that if a man had a good estate by bargain and sale from him who had right to alien that and yet after he accepts a fine upon conusance of right as that c. from the other partie though in this case this be a conclusion to the parties between whom the fine was to denie that the land was of the gift of the Conusor and so that he was seised yet it is not any conclusion to the jurors to finde the verity of the matter in fact and that he had nothing of the gift of the Conusor also it was agreed in that case if a man held lands
a legal signification it shall not be taken but in the better sense for the small pox but Warberton said that if one say of another that he is laid of the pox an action lyes for it is intended the french pox and Winch said that those actions of slander were known to law but of late times and for that 26. H. 8. it was thought that an action would not lye for calling another thief and in the principal case judgement was commanded to be entered quod Querens capiat nihil per brevem suum and note that I saw Hobert shew presidents to Winch in a paper which were delivered to him by the Plantiff and drawn by his Councel and he said to Winch that by those it seemed that in the Kings Bench they made a difference between for and and as had been said before and he marvailed much at that In a Capias Ulagatum before judgement the Sherif returned that I. S. and I. N. rescoused the party c. and Attoe moved that the retorn was not good for there ought to be additions by which they may be sued to the outlawry but Hobert and the Court hold this to be good without addition for no statute nor book will compel the Sheriff to give additions in this case And it was said that if the Sheriff in this case retorn that the party himself simul cum I. S. and I. N. made the rescouse that this is not good but in the principal case it was ruled that the return was good and the rescousers which were present were committed to the fleet Homan and Hull were rescousers Vpon the reading of the record the case was that an executor brought an action against one upon a promise made to the Testator in which the executor was nonsuite and 3. l. costs given against him and the Defendant bruught an action of debt upon that recovery against the executors and upon this it was demurred in law and Serjeant Towse said that there are two causes of the demurrer first whether the Defendant shall be charged as executor and is not named executor and secondly whether upon the nonsuite of an executor the Defendant shall have costs by the statute of the 23. H. 8. Hobert chief Iustice said to him you say well Note that it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that if a man dies intestate and he to whom the Administration appertaines is sued by others which pretend to be Administrators and sentence is given against the right Administrator and costs given against him the costs shall not be of the proper goods of the Administrator but of the goods of the intestate as the costs which are spent in the spiritual Court for the provate of a Testament shall be only of the goods of the Testator Hutton if the Legatee sue in the spiritual Court for a Legacy and recovers the costs which he shall recover shall not be of his own goods but of the goods of the Testator and no prohibition shall be granted for any such sentence given in the spiritual Court Hobert to the contrary for if by such means the goods of the Testator are so wasted that the debts and legacies of the Testator may not be discharged a prohibition shall be granted and in every case where the sentence in the spiritual Court crosseth the common law a prohibition lyes and he said that in the case of one Barrow in this Court it was his opinion and the opinion of the rest of the judges that if Administration be committed by force of 21. H. 8. and the Administrator pay all the debts and Legacies that in this case the ordinary had not power to dispose of the rest of the goods to the children of the intestate but they shall remain to the Administrator and that by the very intention of the Statute of 21. H. 8. but Hendon said that he could shew a president of that and the Court desired that they might see that if any such president were LLewellings case VPon the reading of a Record in the case of LLewelling the condition of the obligation was that the obligor should surrender his Copihold land to the use of the obligee and he pleaded that he had surrendered that and upon that plea the Plantiff demurred and it was adjudged upon the opening of the case by Warberton and Hutton being only present in the Court that judgement shall be given for the Plantiff for the plea in barre is not good because the Defendant had not shewed when the Court of the Lord was holden Duncombe against the Vniversity of Oxford In a Qu. Impedit in which Duncombe and others were Plantiffs who were grantees of the King against the University of Oxford and the case was Hill 18. Jac. that Sir Richard weston was seised of an advowson in grosse inter alia and was convict of recusancy and a Commission issued to seise two parts of his land and goods and they seised this advowson inter alia and the King granted the advowson to the Plantiffs and the Church became void and they presented and were disturbed by the University of Oxford and their Clark upon which they brought a Qu. Impedit upon which a demurrer was joyned and Serjeant Iones argued for the Plantiff and there was two points in the case first whether an advowson in grosse is given to the King by the Statute of the 28. of Eliz. and the Statute is that the King shall seise the lands tenements hereditaments of such a recusant convict and whether by the same statute an advowson in grosse shall be seised and he held that it shall for though perchance the word lands and Tenements will not carry that being an advowson in grosse yet this word hereditament will carry it to the King by force of the Satute for it appears by dyer 350. that if the King grant an advowson by the name of an hereditament that in this case this will pass the advowson and for that Coke 10. Whistlers case the King by the grant an of hereditament grants an advowson by such words to a common person then by the same reason a common person may grant that to the King by the same words but it may be objected that because an advowson in grosse is not valuable therefore it is not given to the King and upon this doubt upon the Statute of Wills â— H. 8. the question was whether an advowson was devisable by the name de bonis et Cattallis fellon Butler and Bakers case that they are not devisable for it is not valuable but the 4th Iac. between Taverner and Gooch which case may be seen in the new book of entries that an advowson was devisable before the Statute 5. H. 7. 37. it shall be assets 9. H. 6. 55. recovery in value lyes of that but admit that this is only a thing of pleasure for the advancement of a friend yet that shall be given by the Statute to the King But the second
the parties hinders the operation of the law and that law will not provide for him that provides not for himself and the Lady her self was partie to the limiting of the uses and she covenanted that she will be seised by vertue of the fine and under the condition in the indenture and so it is a plain Surrender of her former estate and so I pray judgement for the Plantiff The argument of Serjeant Hendon to the contrary HEndon contrary there are 3. points First whether this be a precedent or a subsequent condition and I conceive it is subsequent and here the indentures being but to declare the uses of the fine and not to create any use ergo it shall be guided by the intents of the parties appearing in them and so is the Earl of Rutlands case Cook 5. and Dyer 357. and Shelleys case and the meaning of the parties was not to raise any use to Robert but only a possibilitie to reduce that by the performance of the condition and first it is here said that the Conusee shall be seised to the uses hereafter expressed and under the conditions and then the use ought to preceed the condition for no man may stand seised under the condition except the condition is subsequent to the use to arise Secondly when is the use to arise to Robert surely when he payes 10. s. and then in the mean time the use is to the Lady and her heirs for tunc had here relation to when as it is said in Boles case Cook 3. and in Grants case cited in Loves case Cook 10. and 17. Ed. 3. 1. all which cases prove that tâ—en had relation to when and before this when he had nothing and this doth appear to be the agreement of the parties and now for the words themselves I take it that they make a subsequent condition and so it is here limited in intention and for that in matter also and it is said in Colthirsts case in Plowden that if the estate doth first pass reducible upon condition then it is subsequent and here it is limited to the Conusee and his heirs if the Conusor do not pay but here it hath been said is inversio verborum and the consequent is placed before the Antecedent and this hath been proved by Logick I never knew cases in law to be expounded by Logical and Grammatical learning but by the intentions of the parties and here I conceive that the estate is vâ—sted in the Conusee by the fine and so the condition is subsequent but admit it is Executory and I say concerning that there are these differences that if the state of the thing granted is executory and that the condition of the thing granted is Executory and the condition is to remain with the estate so long as the estate doth remain the condition is precedent 28. E. 3. 2 4. 3. 1. H. 6. 32. but if the condition be but one time to be executed and that not contained with the estate then it is subsequent 10. Eliz. Dyer Calthorps case but here our estate is executed for it is expresly limited to the Lady Cesar and her heirs which takes away all implied uses so that no implied use shall result in the mean time and so 75. Assises land given to a man and to his heirs if he have heirs of his body now this if is subsequent and so I conceive that it is not a condition simply but a conditional limitation for it appears by Mr. Littleton because it is no otherwise expressed and another reason is because the condition is annexed to the future time ergo that is subsequent and yet I grant there is a difference betwixt such an estate conditional annexed to an interest and where it is is annexed to an authoritie it may be precedent but for an interest it is subsequent as is the case of Bracton lib. 2. fo 3. and now for the second point whether the heir may and ought to perform that and I do conceive that he is and it is not annexed to the person because it is real and doth arise with the land Secondly yet the law doth expect who ought to have performed that but it is the performance it self which the law doth respect 4. E. 3. 2. such condition real which doth arise with the land and in such a case no notice is in that case requisite and the last point is whether the estate for life is gone and I hold that it is saved by the common law of England for the fine only is as the grant of the reversion by the explanation of the indenture and then there is no surrender in the case but when the condition is performed the estate for life doth remain and so was it resolved in Mr. Mansors case and yet I agree that a litle matter will make a surrender and Mr. Ruds case where lessee for years of an advowson was presented by the Patron that was a surrender but the Statute of the 27th of H. the Eighth at the end saved that though it is to her own use for the words of the saving are to every person and their heirs which hereafter shall be seised to any use all such former rights c. possession c. as they might have had to their own use in any lands whereof they be seised to any other use whatsoever and so upon the whole matter I do conceive that judgement ought to be given for the Defendant The residue of the case of Gibson and Ferrers NOw the case of Gibson and Ferrers which see before was argued again by Serjeant Bridgman and he said as before the award is not good for the interest and yet he now agreed that covenants bonds and contracts for usury are good in law but yet it may not be awarded 17. Ed. 4. 5. if a man do submit to Arbitrators they may not award that he and his wife shall levie a fine but if the partie himself do promise that this is good and shall binde the wife to perform that and besides he said that here is an award made only of one side and nothing is allowed to Ferrers and so not good 9. Ed. 4. 29. 29. H. 6. 22. and I pray that the Plantiff may be barred Hendon to the contrary and he argued if an award be good in any part though it be not in that which is assigned for breach yet it is good upon such plea of nullum fecerit arbitrium and the other shews an award and assignes the breach in this case the breach is not traversable for it is of the form and not of the substance of the action but to that the Court did presently answer that the cause of the action is the breach of the award and this he ought to make apparent to the Court for otherwise he shall not have any action and though the breach is not traversable yet it is of the substance of the action for upon such plea pleaded he not only
objection is that though it is given to the King yet it is not extendable upon the Statute by the Commissioners for answer to that see Sir Christopher Hattons case 13. Eliz. cap. 4. upon the Statute of H. 8. which saith if a man be indebted to the King all his lands and Tenements shall be extended for this and it was ruled that an advowson was extendible for the debts of the King and more is given to the King by the Statute of the third of Iaco. then was by the 28. Eliz. for by the 28. of Eliz. the King may not seise the land but upon default of payment of 20. l. by the month but by the Statute of the third Iaco. he may seise presently and no election is given to the party secondly by the Statute 28. Eliz. the seisure of the King was only in the nature of distress for the payment of money but by the Statute of 3. Iac. the King had election to seise to satisfie himself and he may refuse to be satisfied at his pleasure and so the Statute which gives this to the Vniversity doth not take away the title of the King and upon that he concluded and prayed judgement for the Plantiffs Harris Serjeant to the contrary the Statute of 3. Iaco. is the only subject of the doubt and the first branch disables the recusant to present secondly it makes the present action void thirdly after conviction the Vniversity shall present and this in verity is that upon which the doubt is founded and upon that branch he conceived that the King had concluded himself to present to the church of the recusant for he being party himself to that act of Parliament he had dismissed himself of all right and Fortescue in laudibus legum Angliae non sunt ad voluntatem principis sed ad voluntatem totius Regni id est the Statutes of England are not at the will and pleasure of the King but at the will of the whole Kingdome Doctor and Stud. agreed and 14. H. 8. Fo. 7. E. 6. Mounson and the case of Alton woods if the saving of an act of Parliament be repugnant it is void and so upon those cases he inferred that the King being party to every act of Parliament he is bound by that and had dispossessed himself of the advowson by the Statute of the 3. of Iaco. which had given that to the Vniversity and had abrogated the power of the King to seise the advowson by vertue of the act of 28. of Eliz. for otherwise this Statute which gives that to the Vniversity shall bee meerly void and Statutes which are repugnant to former lawes take them away and do not confirme them and though the Statute of the 3. of Iaco. is in the affirmative yet that hath taken away the force of the Statute of the 28. Eliz. but it may be objected that before the recusant is convict the King had but a possibility and then by the Statute of the 3. Iac. the King had not dismissed himself of that which in judgement of the law is but a meer possibility and by consequence because he had nothing at the time of the making of the Statute but a possibility he had not given that over by the same Statute to the Vniversity to this he answered that the King may well give a possibility and a future thing as 9. H. 6. 62. 24. E. 3. 24. 30. E. Eliz. Treshams case and so he concluded because that this is given to the Vniversity by act of Parliament the King being party he had dismissed himself and the 3. Iaco. repeals 28. Eliz. as to that purpose and so he prayed judgement upon the whole matter for the Defendants And it was said by Hobert chief Iustice that this is indeed a case of great weight and importance and the Court agreed that the Statute of the 3. Iacobi gave only a power to the Vniversity of Oxford and not an interest but day was given over to argue this again the next Term. Sir George Savil against Thornton SIr George Savil declared that he was seised in fee and in gross of such a Church and that he presented I. S. his Clark who died and that he presented another and was disturbed by Thornton the incumbent the Defendant pleaded that a long time before the Plantiff had any thing in that the Pryor of D. was seised of the advowson and he being seised such a day granted the next avoydance to one Golding and that the advowson and the Priory came to the hands of H. 8. by the Statute of 31. H. 8. by force of which H. 8. was seised and afterwards the church became void and the executor of Golding who was grantee of the next avoidance presented his Clark who was admitted accordingly and afterwards he died that H. 8. died seised of the advowson which discended to E. 6. and so to Queen Mary and from her to Queen Eliz. who was seised in the right of the Crown and she being so seised granted the next avoidance to one Buckley her Clark who was admitted instituted and inducted after which Queen Eliz. died and the advowson discended to King Iames and in the 7th year of his raign the Church became void and he presented the Defendant the Plantiff by way of protestation said that Queen Mary was never seised nor died seised and by protestation that Queen Eliz. was never seised so that this might discend to King Iames and for plea said that well and true it is that H. 8. was seised and died seised so that this discended to E. 6. and that E. 6. such a year of his raigne granted that to Wyat and his wife in fee who granted that to the Plantiff and that Queen Eliz. presented L. only absque hoc that E. 6. died seised upon that it was demurred in law and he shewed the cause of his demurrer first because the protestations which he had taken in his replication are not good secondly the traverse is not good And it was argued for the Defendant by Bawtry Serjeant that the replication is not good because he had taken that by protestation which is traversable see the principal case of Gresbrook and Fox and see the 22. H. 6. and then for the traverse he held that to be naught First because he had traversed that which was but a mean conveyance Secondly he had traversed that which he had confessed and avoided and thirdly he had not traversed that which he ought not to have traversed and for the first it is put regularly in our books that a mean conveyance shall not be traversed and the descent here from E. 6. is but a mean conveyance and the substance is the presentation of Queen Eliz. and that ought to be traversed 17. H. 7. 2. the Prior of Tower Hills case there it said if in Assise the Tenant plead that the Plantiff was seised who infeoffed one B. who infeoffed C. who enfeoffed the Tenant that it is no
it is that if the Lord had seisin of more then the very services in this case it may not be avoyded in avowry and no fall tenure shall be avoyded c. but when he joyns another falsity and that is in the quantity of land now the false quantity of the rent had made the tenure traversable and the judgement was commanded to be entred accordingly Trin. 19. Jac. Thomas Bull Executor c. against Fankester THomas Bull Executor of William Bull brought an action against Fankester and declared that the Defendant enfeoffed his Testator in certaine land and that he covenanted for him and his heirs that he was seised of a good estate in fee and he alleadged the breach upon which they were at issue and now Attoe moved in arrest of judgement first because the Plantiff sueing as Executor had not shewed the Will for it hath been adjudged here that if a man bring an action as executor and do not shew the Will that the Defendant may demurre upon that because it is matter of substance but Hobert said it is very good because the Defendant had admitted him to be responsible but it is true he might have demurred upon the declaration as we often times adjudged here secondly Attoe said that the covenant being made with the heire the executor shall not have an action of covenant for it is annexed to the land which was granted by Hobert and Winch being only present in the Court. Note that it was said at the barre and agreed by Hobert that if the debtor make the dettee his executor he may now retain in debt against him and safely plead plene administravit if he had no other goods and shall not be driven to his special plea and so it had been agreed often times in this Court Parson and Morlees case PArson and Morlees case it was said that the Lord Chancellour presented to a venefice which belonged to the King which was above the yearly value of 20. l. per annum and this was referred to Hobert chief Iustice and to Tanfield chief Barron to certifie whether this was meerly void it remained good till it was avoyded Harris against Wiseman HArris had procured a prohibition against Wiseman who had libelled in the spiritual Court against the Plantiff for a frat in the Church which did belong to his house and it was said by Hobert and Winch only present that a man or a Lord of a mannor who had any Isle or a seat in the Church c. and he is sued for that in the spiritual Court he shall have a prohibition but not every common parishioner for every common seat and upon the first motion at the barre in this case day was given over to the Defendant to shew cause wherefore that a prohibition shall not be granted and the Defendant not having notice of that after the day the Plantiff had a prohibition and now after the day he shewed a good cause and upon that a supersedeas was granted to stay the prohibition in that case Aylesworth against Harrison AYlesworth against Harrison in debt against an executor the question was whether he may plead plene Administravit and give in evidence a debt in which the Testator was indebted to him or whether he may plead the special matter that plea amounting but to the general issue and it was argued by Harris Serjeant the Defendant may plead the special matter and shall not be bound to the general issue to leave that to the lay people who may suppose such a retainer to be an administration and he vouched the 15. E. 4. 18. if a man illiterate seale a deed which is read to him in another manner c. and he delivers that as an escrow to be delivered over as his deed upon conditions performed and this is delivered over before the conditions performed he may in this case plead the special matter and conclude so not his deed or if he will he may plead the general issue of non est factum and so is 39. H. 6. in dower the Tenant said that before marriage the husband infeoffed him and that after the Tenant let to him at Will and that the husband continued possession during his life absque hoc that he was seised of such an estate of which she might have dower and exception was taken there because that this only amounts to the general issue and yet ruled to be good for the lay people may conceive such a continuance of possession during the life of the lessee to be such an estate of which the wife may have dower if this were put upon the general issue and in our case because he had liberty to plead specially or generally he prayed that the Defendant may be admitted to plead specially and that he may not be bound to the general issue Serjeant Hendon to the contrary if one plead a plea which amounts to the general issue see Layfields case Coo. 10. and though in Woodwards case commentaries there was such a plea pleaded yet this doth not prove the contrary for in the same case no exception was taken by the Plantiff and presidents do prove that the Defendants in this kind have been compelled to plead the general issue Hobert if no special matter may be alleadged to the contrary the Defendant shall be compelled to plead the general issue and this is good discretion in the Court to take away the perplexity of pleading because one plea is as good as the other to which Winch being only present agreed and it was ordered that the Defendant here plead accordingly In debt against the heire upon the obligation of his father and in the declaration the Plantiff omitted these words obligo me et hered es meos c. and after error brought the Plantiff prayed that this might be amended because it was the misprision of the Clark only Hobert and Winch said that this shall not be amended for it is a matter of substance but because the clark who made this misprision was a good clark day was given over c. Widdow Archers case IN debt against the Widdow of Archer being executrix of her husband and the Plantiff declared that neither the Testator in his life nor the executrix after his death had paid that omitting those words licet saepius requisitus c. and evil but this omission was amended Sir Edward Grubham against Sir Edward Cooke SIr Edward Grubham brought an audita querela against Sir Edward Cooke upon a recognizance of 4000. l. and this was acknowledged to the use of his Mother and shewed that the conusor had infeoffed him and another in the land and that the conusee had sued execution only against him and it was found for the Plantiff and it was so moved in arrest of judgement by Ashley Serjeant first because he had not shewed in this audita querela when the Statute was certified nor yet the Teste nor yet the return of the writ of extent
return and this was granted by Hobert chief Iustice at another day this Term Peter Vanheath against Turner PEter Vanheath brought an action against Turner and declared upon the custome of Merchants that if any Merchant over the sea deliver money to a factor and make a bill of exchange under his seal and this is subcribed by the Mr. or by any of the company of such Merchants that the Merchant himself or all the company or any one in particular may be charged to pay that and he shewed that one Morgan was factor of the company of which the Defendant was one and that the said Morgan did substitute one Greenway to whom the Plantiff delivered 100. l. upon a bill of exchange to which bill one Bounder being one of the company set to his hand in England and so the action accrewed to the Plantiff The Defendant pleaded nihil debet per legem and upon that the Plantiff demurred in law and the question was whether the Defendant may wage his law and it was argued by Serjeant Harvey that he shall not wage his law for this is only an action upon the case and sounds only in nonfesance and here is no privity between the Plantiff and Defendant for the bill was made over the sea and subcribed here in England and he shall not charge the Defendant without a special custome so that it is plaine that it is custome which made the Defendant lyable and if the Defendant do not pay for this no action of debt lyes but only an action upon the case and every plea ought to conclude to the point in action and for that in trover and conversion non culp is a good plea and yet he may traverse the finding for this tends to the issue and is good and so in debt upon a lease for years nihil debet is a good plea or non dimisit for the cause aforesaid but when the plea doth not tend to the point in issue it is otherwise for he ought to traverse that which tends to the point in issue and in our case the Defendant may traverse the custome or give answer to the nonfesance but he shall not wage his law and an action lyes upon this contract against the Mr. for this and so he concluded that judgement ought to be given for the Plantiff Harris Serjeant contrary this non payment is not a non fesance in the Defendant and here the Defendant may not plead not guilty or non assumpsit for no promise was made and it is a general rule in law that where a man may traverse the conveyance there he shall not wage his law see 5. H. 7. but here the Defendant may not traverse the conveyance Ergo he may wage his law and 5. H. 7. the successor of an Abbot shall have his law of a contract made with his predecessor and he said that the book of the 23. E. 3. is not law Hobert chief Iustice if the Bayliff at the common law make a substitute the substitute is not chargeable but here the custome will bind the law Secondly he laid 2. or 3. Merchants trade over the sea who made a factor there who takes money there and gives a bill and this is subscribed by one of the company that this should bind all or any of the company is not a good custome and the custome of Merchants is part of the common law of this Kingdome of which the judges ought to take notice and if any doubt arise to them about there custome they may send for the Merchants to know there custome as they may send for the Civillians to know there law and he thought that the Defendant ought to be admitted to wage his law for the delivery of the money made a contract in law and as he may have an action of debt so without question he may have an action upon the case and so count upon a promise and then the Defendant may not wage his law Mich. 19. Jac. C. P. Doctor Hunt against Allen. DOctor Hunt brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 100. l. against the heire of Edmond Allen and the condition of the obligation was that whereas the testator Edmond Allen in the first year of the raigne of the King hath given and granted to the Plantiff the presentation to the Church of D. if therefore the said Edmond Alllen from time to time shall make good the said grant from all incumberances made or to be made by him and his heirs that then c. and the grantor dyed and the Church became void and the heire of the grantor presented and whether this was a breach of the Condition was the question and Hobert chief Iustice and Winch being only present thought this tortious presentation to be no breach of the condition but this extends only to lawful disturbance by the heire and by the pleading here it appears that though the heire presented yet he had no right to present because that his father had granted that before and then the presentation of the heire is as a meer stranger And those general words will not extend to a tortious disturbance by the heire but Hobert said that the words shall have such a construction as if it had been said that he shall enjoy the same from any act or acts made by him or his heires and in this case there ought to be a lawful eviction to make a breach of the condition but otherwise if the condition had been that he shall peaceably enjoy from any act or acts made by him or his heires in that case a tortious disturbance would have been a breach of the condition but it was adjorned till another time Information was for that one such his apprentice departed out of his service and the Defendant received and retained him without a testimonial from the Mr. contra formam Statuti And so he demanded 5. l. the Defendant pleaded nihil debet per patriam and it was found against him and now Hendon Serjeant moved in arrest of judgement that an apprentice is out of the clause of the Statute of the 5th of Elizabeth and that the same Statute extends only to servants and to labourers retained within that Statute for the statute saith be it enacted that no person or persons that depart out of service without shewing of a testimonial as is above remembered and this branch as is above remembered had only reference to the next clause before and the same branch before makes only mention of certaine trades in which an apprentice as in our case is not included and the certificate set down within the Statute proves that an apprentice is not within the Statute for the words are I. W. servant to such a one c. and so it extends to servants and not to apprentices and secondly he said the information is not good because he had not shewed in what trade this apprentice served and perchance he was retained in such a trade as is not
after his death it shall remain to his son and his wife in fee and the book is that this Covenant will raise an use also if this Covenant and agreement will not amount to raise an use then it is not to any use or purpose at all and by consequence the consideration of the marriage is void also and an action of Covenant will very well lye without any such consideration of marriage and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant adjourned Mich. 20. Jac. C. P. Johnson against Norway IOhnson brought an action of Trespass against Norway of Trespass made in a piece of ground and the Defendant pleaded that 14. H. 7. Roger Le Strange and Anne his wife were seised of the Mannor of D. and one Giles Sherington Abbot of C. was seised of an acre of land in fee and held this of the said Roger Le-Strange as of the Mannor of D. aforesaid and that the 22. H. 7. the Abbot and all the Monks died by which the said land escheated to Roger c. and the Mannor discended to his son and heire after his death who conveyed the Mannor of which the acre is parcel after the escheat by mean conveyance to Hobert in fee and that Hobert 12. Eliz. infeoffed one Wright of the Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and so justified by a conveyance from Wright to the Defendant the Plantiff replied by protestation that the Abbot was not eligible and for plea he said that the aforesaid Hobert 10. Eliz. infeoffed I. S. of the said acre of land absque hoc that he infeoffed Wright of the sad Mannor of which the said acre is parcel and upon this the Defendant demurred generally And Serjeant Attoe argued for the Plantiff that the Plea of the Defendant is evil and then though the replication of the Plantiff is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement and he cited Turners case Hobert it is true Cook 8. if the replication be meerly void then it is as you had said but if the replication be the title of the Plantiff and that be insufficient there the Plantiff shall not have judgement though the plea in barre was evil Attoe agreed that if it appear by the Plantiffs own shewing that he had no cause of action and that he had no title he shall not have judgement but here he had made a good title by the lease of the said acre of land and though our traverse is evil and sounds in doubleness yet the Defendant had demurred generally and so he had lost the advantage of the doubleness or of the negative pregnant for if a maâ— plead double matter this is only matter of form and not of substance and therefore after verdict it is good as hath been adjudged but he proceeded in his argument and he said that the barre of the Defendant is not good for by his own shewing this acre of land is not parcel of the Mannor for by the dissolution of the Monastery by the death of all the Monks the land shall go to the founders and donors and not to escheat to the Lord of which that is holden as appears 2. H. 6. 7. and 5. H. 7. if an annuity or rent be granted to an Abbot in fee and the Abbot and all his Monks do die the annuity or the rent is extinct and shall not escheat see the Deane of Norwiches case Coo. 3. agreed that by the death of the Abbot and his Covent the corporation is dissolved and then the possession shall go to the founders and shall not escheat to the Lord of the Mannor of which the Land was holden and he said that this point is proved cleerly by the Statute of the 27. H. 8. and 31. H. 8. of Monasteries in which Statutes there is an express saving to all persons except to the donors and to their heires and no mention is made of the saving of the right of those of whom the land was holden and that proves cleerly that if the makers of the Statute had thought that the land had escheated to the Lords they would have excepted them in the saving of the act as they had excepted the Donors and Founders for if otherwise the lands and possessions shall escheat to the Lords of which the land was holden they are within the saving of the Statute and then it will follow that after the death of all the Monks as at this day that the Lords shall have the land by escheat which the Sages of the Law never dreamt of who made that Statute that any thing may accrew to the Lord and therefore they provided only for the title of the Donors and Founders which is an argument that they thought that upon the dissolution of the Monesteries that the lands shall go to the Founders and the same he thought concerning a corporation at this day as of Suttons Hospital c. and so he concluded that because in the barre of the Defendant he claimed to hold from the Lord to whom he supposed the land to escheat and did not claim c. by his own shewing the barre is not good and though our replication and traverse is not good yet the Plantiff shall have judgement But admitting that the barre is good yet the replication and traverse is good and then judgement shall be given for the Plantiff and the case is the Defendant pleaded a feofment of the Man 12. Eliz. to Wright after that he had shewed the escheat of an acre the Plantiff replied that the 10th Eliz. the Feofor infeoffed C. of the acre of land absque hoc that he was infeoffed of the Mannor of which the acre is parcel and Attoe argued that the traverse is good and he alleadged 38. H. 6. 49. the same traverse and here when the Defendant had pleaded that the acre escheated and had alleadged a Feofment of the Mannor and had not expresly alleadged a Feofment of the acre the Plantiff may traverse that which is not expresly alleadged because this destroyes the very title of the Defendant and he cited for that 34. H. 6. 15. a writ of priviledge in trespass as a Servant to an auditor of the exchequer the Plantiff replied that he was servant to him in husbandry absque hoc that he was his servant to waite and attend upon him in his office and it was holden a good traverse and yet that was not expresly alleadged by the Defendant Hobert chief Iustice said that the traverse is not good for by the Feofment which was made the 12th Eliz. he had confessed and avoyded the Feofment which was made 10th Eliz. and so there needed no traverse and therefore he said the great doubt of the case will be upon the barre of the Defendant whether by the death of the Abbot and the Monks the land escheat to the Lords of whom that was holden or whether that shall go to the Donors and to the Founders and he thought that the land shall escheat to which
had said that he took money for ingrossing of Feodaries which is desceit without question that had been actionable but there may not be Couzning without desceit And he cited Boxes case where one said of an Attorney that he was a maintainer of suits and a Champerter action lies for it shall be taken to be a scandal to him in his profession for though an Attorney may maintain suites yet he ought not to be a Champerter and he further said that he who will maintain an action for words ought to be scandalized in his publick profession and he cited a case which was in the Kings Bench Brad against Hay and the Plantiff declared that he was Bailiff to such a one and that he had the buying and the selling of his Corn and that the Defendant said of him that he sold by false measures and adjudged that no action lies for it is not a scandal to him in his publick profession and so 36. Eliz. one said of a Merchant that he kept a false debt book and because he may be a Merchant without a debt book it was ruled that an action doth not lie but if he had said of him that he deceived men by buying and selling these words had been actionable and he said that two things are required to every publick profession science and fidelity and when a man who hath a publick profession is scandalized in either of those an action of the case lies and cited Palmers case of Lincolns Inne he being a Lawyer 't was said to him by one that he had as much Law as a Iackan-apes and adjudged to be actionable for it is a scandal to him in his profession and so Sir Miles Fleetwoods case where he who is Plantiff in this action was Defendant in that he being receiver of the Court of Wards one said to him Mr. deceiver hath Couzned the King and hath dealt falsly with him and adjudged that an action upon the case lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had Couzned him or dealt deceitfully with him but yet because it appears to the Court that he might deal deceitfully and Couzen the King therefore actionable and he cited Birchleys case you have dealt corruptly an action lies and yet he did not shew wherein he had dealt corruptly and here he had said he was a Couzner by the receipt of money which is an express scandal to him in his office Winch accordingly to every office of trust is a condition in Law annexed that he deal honestly and justly and he cited Wingates case in the Kings Bench one said to another is Wingate your Attorney and the other said that he was and the other replied take heed and follow him well for else he will make you throw your purse over your bosome and it was adjudged that an action lies for it is a scandal to him in his profession and it shall be taken as much as if he had said he will make you spend all the money in your purse if you look not the better to him and so applied this to the principal case and in this case judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff in the action if no other cause be shewed before such a day An action upon the case was brought for these words the Plantiff did load a ship of my Fathers with Barley and did steal and Couzned 7. quarters thereof in measure and upon not guilty pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that the word Cozned being joyned with the word stole had taken away the force of that and made it but Cozning but Hutton contrary and that it shall be understood that he stole 7. quarters in measure and quantity and Winch seemed to agree and it was adjourned and an other day awarded that an action lies Godfrey Wade Alias Mack-Williams case GOdfrey Wade and others in an ejectione firme and the case upon a special verdict was to this effect Henry Mack-Williams the father was seised of land and being so seised he conveyed that to the use of himself for life the remainder to his wife for life the remainder to the heires of their two bodies engendred the remainder to the heires of the bodie of Mack-Williams the Feoffor and the remainder to his right heirs in fee and he had a son by his wife named Henry and 5. daughters and he died and afterwards the son in the life of his Mother by deed indented leased to White-Head for 31. years rendring rent and afterwards he leavies a fine to the use of himself and his heirs in fee and died and after whose death the Mother suffered a recovery within six moneths in which 4. of their husbands were vouched and the recovery was to the use of the feme for life the remainder to every one of the daughters in fee and the sole doubt was whether the lease made by Henry the son is defeated by this recovery and it was argued by Harvey Serjeant that the lease shall stand good notwithstanding this recovery suffered by the Mother for he said that Henry Mark-Williams being issue in tail and also being heire to the remainder in fee who made this lease by indenture in this case this lease issues as well out of the estate taile as out of the reversion in fee and the fine leavied in the life of his Mother binds and bars the estate taile at the time of the fine and then the lease being drawn out of the reversion in fee which discended to the daughters after the death of their brother this reversion shall be charged with the lease and the recovery had not destroyed that and this case will differ from Capels case for it is agreed if tenant in tail bee the remainder in fee and he in remainder in fee granted a rent charge and after Tenant in tail suffer a recovery by this the rent is destroyed for there he who suffered the recovery was Tenant in tail in possession but in our case when the son had leavied a fine in the life of his Mother by this fine the tail is destroyed and the Mother is become Tenant in tail after possibility of issue extinct which is only an estate for life in quantity and then though she suffers a recovery yet this doth not destroy the lease made by Tenant in tail when there was also a fine leavied to confirm that Secondly he argued that when the issue in tail in the life of his Mother made a lease for yeares by indenture and then leavied a fine and died and then the Mother being Tenant in tail and joyntress within the Statute of 11. H. 7. as in our case she is and she suffers a recovery and vouches the daughters in reversion and lessee for years enters after the death of the feme by force of 11. H. 7. for lessee for years is a person who may enter within the express words of that Statute which gives entrie to any person
answered that if it is meerly Collateral then it shall not go to the successor of the Bishop but to his executors as if the lessee had covenanted or obliged himself to pay this Herriot to the successor he may not have benefit of this obligation but the executor of the Bishop who was lessor shall have that and so he said that the argument made by Hendon is against him for if it be meerly Collateral then this shall not go to the successor and though the lessee of the Mannor may not have it the Plantiff shall not have a Trover and Conversion as he said before but he held this good by way of reservation for modus conventio vincunt legem and as to that which hath been said that the Herriot is to be paid upon the death of a stranger and not upon the death of the lessee himself to this he answered that this is nothing for the payment shall be out of the beasts of the lessee and not out of the beasts of a stranger and so he concluded and prayed judgement for the Defendant Rives case SAlmon avowed for a rent charge and he shewed that Sir Robert Rives had a rent charge granted to him and he further shewed a discent of that to the son and heir of Sir Robert and shewed that the rent was behinde unpaid to him viz. to his son and heir and he avowed as Bailiff to the son and exception was taken to the avowry because it is not expresly alleadged in whose time the rent was due whether in the time of the father or in the time of the son for if it is behinde in the time of the father the son may not distrain for that but it was resolved that the avowry was very good for in asmuch that he had shewed that the rent was not paid to the son this implied the rent was due to the son and not to the father An Executor brought a Scire Facias upon a judgement given for the Testator in debt by him and the Defendant would have pleaded the death of the Testator between the verdict and the judgement per Curiam he was not suffered for he may not plead this in a Scire Facias but the Defendant is put to his writ of error In Trespass for beasts taken in London and the Defendant justified to taking as a distress upon a lease of land in Kent and the Plantiff replied that the Defendant sold the beasts in London and so not a good plea to bring the Trial out of Kent and to have that tried in London which note Batterseys case AN action upon the case was brought against one Hordecre upon an assumpsit and he declared that the Defendant had arrested one Battersey by vertue of a Commission of Rebellion out of the Cinque ports and that the Plantiff keeping a Common Inne the Defendant brought the said Battersey to his Inne and requested the Plantiff to keep him a day and a night and promised in consideration there upon that he would save him harmless and he shewed that he kept the prisoner accordingly and that the said Battersey brought an action of false imprisonment against him and recovered against him upon which the action accrewed and upon non assumpsit pleaded it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement because he had not shewed that the said Battersey was lawfully arrested and imprisoned and then if a man will without cause arrest a man and promise in this case no action will lie for it is no consideration because that the imprisonment is unlawful but Hobert chief Iustice Hutton and Winch contrary for be the imprisonment lawful or not lawful he might not take notice of that as if I request another man to enter into another mans ground and in my name to drive out the beasts and impound them and promise to save him harmless this is a good assumpsit and yet the act is Tortious but by Hutton where the act appears in it self to be unlawful there it is otherwise as if I request you to beat another and promise to save you harmless this assumpsit is not good for the act appears in it self to be unlawful but otherwise it is as in our case when the act stands indifferent but Hobert said it may be there is a difference between a publick officer and a private man for if the Sheriff arrest a man unlawfully and promise as before this is a good assumpsit but perchance otherwise of a private man as here but in the principal case the Defendant had pleaded non assumpsit and this implies a Lawful imprisonment for otherwise the Defendant might have given the unlawful imprisonment in evidence and judgement was commanded to be entered for the Plantiff Claworthy against Mitchel CLaworthy against Mitchel in a replevin the Defendant avowed for a rent and shewed that his father was seised and let for years rendring rent and he died and that the reversion descended to him and for rent behinde he avowed in barre of which avowry the Plantiff said that the father devised the reversion to another and the other maintained his avowry and traversed the devise and it was found that the devise was only of two parties and not of the third part for in very truth the land was holden by Knights service and all this was found by special verdict and for whom the jury had found was the question and it was argued by Hendon that this verdict is found for the avowant and he vouched 32. H. 8. Brook issue 8. in a precipe quod reddat if the issue be whether A. and B. infeoffed the Tenant and it is found that A. infeoffed him but not that A. and B. infeoffed him the issue is found against the Tenant see 14. E. 4. and Dyer 260. in debt upon a lease for years of divers parcels of land and upon non demisit pleaded it is found quod demisit all except one parcel this is found for the Plantiff and â—rin 15. Iac. Rot. 2022. Allen against Soper in a replevin for a horse and avowed for damage fesant and the Defendant claimed Common for his beasts Levant and Couchant upon his land and some in this case were found Levant and Couchant and others not and it was found against the Plantiff and he said in this case when the Defendant had alleadged a devise of all the land and upon this issue is joyned and it is found that part is devised and not all this is found against the Plantiff because the issue is joyned upon a particular and a special point whether all was devised or no and yet he agreed that upon a general issue as in trespass in 20. acres of land and the Defendant is found guilty but only in one yet the Plantiff shall have judgement but not where the issue is joyned upon a particular point as here but admitting that the Plantiff shall have judgement yet the avowant shall have return
prayed judgement in the case for the Defendant Finis M. 20. Jac. The Bishop of Glocester against Wood before NOw the case between the Bishop of Glocester and Wood was adjudged Hobert and Winch being only present and first it was resolved by them that when the Bishop let parcel as 20. acres for life and after he lets the Mannor it self to another rendring rent in this case the rent issues out of the intire Mannor for if in debt for the rent the lessor do declare upon a demise of the Mannor omitting the reversion of this parcel the declaration is evill and upon non dimisit pleaded it shall be found against him Secondly this they held that the Herriot reserved shall go with the reversion and if this do not go with the reversion to the lessee of the Mannor yet the Plantiff shall not have the Herriot and then though the Defendant had not good title to the Herriot yet if the property of the Herriot do not appertain to the Plantiff he shall not have a trover and conversion for the Defendant had the first possession and judgement was commanded to be entred for the Defendant if no other cause was shewed before next thursday Hill 20. Jac. C. P. Bulloigne against William Gervase Administrator BUlloigne brought an action of debt upon an obligation of 12. l. against William Gervase Administrator to I. S. and the Defendant pleaded that the intestate died outlawed and that the outlawrie alwayes continued in force and upon this the Plantiff did demur generally and it was argued by Attoe for the Plantiff for the plea is not good for this is a plea only by way of argument that he shall not be charged for this debt because he had not assets and in this case this outlawrie ought to be given in evidence upon nothing in his hands being pleaded and it ought not to be pleaded in barre for by possibility the outlawrie may be reversed and then the Administrator shall be charged if he had any goods and he vouched a case in this Court Trin. 27. Eliz. Rot. 2954. Worley against Bradwel and Dame Manners his wife Administratrix to Sir Thomas Manners and the feme pleaded outlawrie in the intestate and the Plantiff demurred generally and it was adjudged to be no plea and note that the record was brought into the Court and read accordingly Hitcham Serjeant to the contrary the record in Manners case was not well pleaded for the Defendant only shewed that a Capias ad satisfaciendum issued against the Testator and did not shew any recovery or judgement against him and that was the reason of the judgement in that case and the Plantiff here ought to have demurred specially as the case of 27. of Eliz. for otherwise he shall not have advantage of this plea and the plea is only evil for the manner for it is apparant that by the outlawrie of the Testator all his goods are forfeit and this is the reason of the book of 16. E. 4. 4. it is a good plea in an action of debt to plead an outlawrie in the Plantiff and to demand judgement of the action and not judgement of the writ for the debt is forfeit to the King by the outlawrie Hobert Hutton and Winch the president shewed by Attoe is not answered for though the pleading of the outlawrie is without shewing of a recovery and judgement yet the outlawrie is good till it is reversed and Hutton said that in some cases an Executor or Administrator had goods though the Testator died outlawed as if the Testator let for life rendring rent and the rent is behinde and after the Testator is outlawed and dies this shall not be forfeit but his Executors shall have the rent and if a man make a feofment upon condition that the feoffor pay 100. l. to the feoffee and his heirs or Executors and the feoffee is outlawed and the feoffor pay the money to his Executors as he may well the Executors and not the King shall have that also if the Testator is outlawed and he devise his land to his Executors to be sold these moneys shall not be forfeit and they shall agree that the plea was not good notwithstanding the general demurrer for he who will barre another by an argumentative plea his plea ought to be infallible to all intents and purposes and so it is not here for the Executors and the Administrators may be charged by the having of goods though the Testator was outlawed and for that the plea of the Defendant is not good in substance and the general demurrer is good by Hobert and by him if we suffer this plea then the Defendant will keep the goods and not reverse the outlawrie nor yet satisfie the King also if he had not goods the Defendant may plead plene Administravit or nothing in his hands and give this outlawrie in evidence See 8. E. 4. 6. 3. H. 6. 32. 39. H. 6. 37. by the opinion of Prisot and also see the case in E. 4. 5. a case to this purpose and also note well that it was said concerning the case of Manners that a writ of error was brought of that afterwards and that the case remains till this day undetermined Buckley against Simonds Ent. 18. Jac. Rot. 2120. NOw at this day the case of Buckley and Simonds was argued by Iustice Hutton and by Winch and the case was briefly this Anne Buckley Administrator to Andrew Buckley her Husband was Plantiff in a quare Imp. against John Simonds John Prior and Robert Pierce Alias Price for disturbing her to present to the Church of D. and shewed that Andrew Buckley Grandfather of the Husband of the Plantiff was seised of the said advowson in gross and presented one I. S. and he died after whose death the advowson discended to Richard Buckley and that the Church became void and that one Richard Williams usurped upon the said Richard Buckley then being within age and that Richard Buckley also died and by his death the said advowson discended to Andrew Buckley as brother and as heir to Richard and that the Church became void and before the presentment by Andrew and within 6. moneths Andrew died and that the Administration of the goods of Andrew were committed to the Plantiff and that she presented within 6. moneths and the Defendants disturbed her and the Defendants pleaded in barre and confessed the seisin of the Grandfather as is alledged in the declaration and they said that the said Andrew Buckley 14. Eliz. by his Indenture made between the said Andrew Buckley on the one part and John Preston of the other part by which the said Andrew Buckley by the same Indenture covenanted with Preston in consideration of a marriage to be had between John Buckley and Elizabeth Preston daughter of John Preston he covenanted with him and his heirs that immediately after he death of him and of his wife the said advowson inter alia shall be to the said John Buckley
against Hutchinson and made title to present to the Church in the right of his wife and after the issue joyned and before the venire facias the wife died and the Plantiff shewed that himself had took out a venire facias in his own name and upon that Harris demurred in law because he supposed that the writ was abated but Winch was of opinion that the writ was not abated because this was a Chattel vested in the husband during the life of the wife Ferrers against English IN an action upon the case upon a promise between Ferrers and English and upon non assumpsit it was found for the Plantiff and now it was moved in arrest of judgement that the venire facias was not well awarded for it was proecipimus quod tibi venire facias Duodecim liberos et Legales homines Coram Henrico Hobert apud Westmonasterium where that ought to be Coram Iusticiariis nostris and therefore the writ being insufficient it is not amendable and for that he cited the case where the venire facias was awarded to th Coroner and that ought to be awarded to the Sheriff and this adjudged to be erroneous this case was answered that this was the custome and there was a case alledged to be adjudged 30. Eliz. between Cesor and Story where a Capias did issue out of this Court in this form Ita quod habeas Corpus ejus Coram Iusticiariis omitting apud Westmonasterium and this was reversed for error but this was answered to be in an original which ought to be precise in every point but Serjeant Crook said that because this was but judicial process and the trial is taken upon the habeas corpus that it is amendable for in all cases where the roll is right though there be an error in the venire facias yet this is amendable Sir Robert Nappers case A Rent was granted to Sir Robert Napper and if it happen that this annual rent to be behinde that then the land shall at all times be open and subject to distress of the Grantee according to the true form and effect of the said indenture and upon all the pleading a demurrer was joyned and the sole doubt was whether the last words were a distinct covenant by themselves for if they are then the obligation is forfeit for the lands are not open to distress because that the mother of Sir Robert held that till the age of 24. years or whether they are part of the former covenant and then the former worde will qualifie that because there was not any act made by him to the contrary and it was argued by Bawtrie that they are all one covenant for they charge the land with the Annuitie and he covenants that this shall be open to distress and it is all one matter and thing and is therefore a covenant and where one covenant doth depend upon another there one expounds the other so Dyer in Throgmortons case 151. and he urged many cases which are cited there and he cited the Lord Cromwels case where words of proviso are placed between words of covenants yet they will work according to the intent of the persons and there it is said that ex antecedentibus et consequentibus fiat relatio and so it appears to him that this referred to the estate which Sir Thomas had from his father and that he made nothing to impeach or to alter that and he cited the case of Sir Moile Finch though by the fine the Mannor of Beamstone was destroyed yet in the said indenture free egress and regress was reserved to the Courts for the Lady Finch afterwards an other fine was levied of all the lands and Tenements except the Mannor of Beamstone where in verity that was destroyed before and yet the judges did construe this to be a good exception because this was in verity the intent of the parties and there they made a construction upon the covenants which did lead the fine and upon the latter indenture which did direct the others and so the principal case in Althams case the judges did not only adjudge upon the first words of the lease but upon altogether and he cited the case of Hickmote where the exception extends to all the parties of the precedent deed and Hendon argued to the contrary that they were several covenants and yet he granted all the cases cited by Bawtrie but said they all stood upon this difference where it is a joynt thing and where it is a several thing as here and for that reason that ought not to be applies to that for they are distinct sentences and not joynt as is expressed in Sir Henry Finches case Coo. 6. and they ought to be construed as distinct covenants for otherwise they shall not take effect at all for then he had not any remedy for the rent which is expresly against the intentions of the parties and Crawley Serjeant said that if the two first covenants were according to the title and the last was only conditional if the rent was behinde that then it should be open to distress and the Court seemed that they were several covenants but judgement was respited for that time and the same Term the case was moved again by Hendon that they were distinct covenants and that this was the scope of the indenture and the intention of the parties that this should begin presently and secondly the two covenants are of several natures and if the third covenant be not several then it is idle for all is implied in the first and day was further given to advise of that but the opinion of the Court seemed to be for the Plantiff See after Trin. 22. Iac. Westlie against King VVEstly against King in debt the bond did bear date the 11th of February 18. Iac. and this was to perform an award Ita quod the ward be made before Easter of all controversies depending between them in the Star chamber and the Defendant pleaded that there was no award made in the mean time and the other shewed the award and assigned the breach and the Defendant replied that before the award was made c. upon the 16th of March they discharged the Arbitrators and so concluded as at the first they made no award and now Serjeant Davenport moved that he had not maintained his bar quod non fecerit tale arbitrium and have given the discharge in evidence for now it appears that the bond is forfeit but Hutton said that the Plantiff ought to have shewed this discharge and so he had shewed the forfeiture and he said further that the rejoynder is an affirmation of the bar if they were discharged then they made no award and this notwithstanding shewed a forfeiture of the bond but not upon the point which the Plantiff had alledged and Winch said though this is is so yet it appears that the Plantiff had cause of action by all the record before and day was given over in the case
have Dower because the feme is dowable of them for this sufficeth to say that he had assets generally 7. Ed. 2. Dower 184. out of which I conclude that this voucher is not like to other vouchers but this is onely to secure the estate of the Purchasers and then as to the president I answer first it was found there that the vouchee had nothing and also it was never debated for a writ of error was brought of that and nothing done for this was referred to Arbitrement and so I pray that no writ of seisin may be awarded and the Court semed to be of opinion that the judgement may be conditional chiefly Hobert and Iones vehemently but now they said because that judgement is once given they are not to reverse their own judgements and to give another judgement and now it is as if he had no assets but yet that doth not aide an erroneous judgement given before and therefore if the Tenant will be relieved he ought to bring his writ of error but it was said that if this judgement was to be given again this was as it should be because that is all one now as if he had not assets and the judgement stood as it was Potter against Brown NOw the case of Potter and Brown was moved again and Hendon took two exceptions as before first for default of averment and secondly the words are not actionable for it was adjudged in Lanes case if one say of another that he is as arrant a Thief â—s any is in the Goal of Warwick this is not good without averment that there are Thieves in Warwick Goal and here it shall be so for the law doth not suppose that there are Thieves in England and besides here in this case the subsequent words do qualifie the other for the words under the for ought to be of such a thing as is Theft and that is not so in our case Serjeant Richardson to the contrary the last words do not qualifie but rather aggravate them for he gives a reason of his speach and this taking is to be understood with a fellonious intent for the first words do charge him to be a Thief and therefore the last words shall be intended that he took them with a fellonious intent for he did not only charge him in the general but in particular but the Court c. Hobert Hutton and Winch said that the Plantiff shall not have judgement because he failes of averment for he did not say expresly that he is a Thief but as arrant a Thief as any is in England and we are not to enquire after words except they are plain for if one say he was in Warwick Goal for stealing of a Horse adjudged not to be actionable and we may not presume that there are Thiefes in England and so judgement was arrested Adams against Ward INtra Trin. 21. Iac. Rot. 1845. note that it was said in an action upon the case between one Adams and Ward an Attorney that whereas one Hennings sued Adams in an action of debt and Adams retained Ward to be his Attorney and gave him warrant to plead the general issue and Ward suffered the judgement by nihil dicit that this was not any cause of an action except it was by Covin and for that if Adams had not laid in his declaration that this was by Covin he should not have recovered and at another day it was agreed that the Covin was not traversable by Plea but only in evidence at the Bar. Cook against Cook in Dower IN a writ of Dower between Cook and Cook they were at issue and at the day of nisi prius the Defendant pleaded that the demandant had entred and was seised and yet is seised since the last contrivance c. Octabis Sancti Hillarii ultimo quo die continetur usque ad hunc diem c. vicesimum diem Februariâ— which in verity was the day of the nisi prius and it was demurred upon this Plea for two causes the first was because he had not shewed that the Tenant was disseised for otherwise it shall not abate the action and to say that the demandant was seised was not sufficient for though this implies so much that the other was disseised yet here it ought to be expresly alledged but the Court spake nothing to this but Winch thought this to be very good according to Dyer 76. there the entrie is pleaded only and yet good but they resolved that the pleading of the continuance is not good for it is from one Term to another nisi prius justiciarii Venerint c. and he ought to have precisely shewed that but the question now was whether the demandant shall have judgement to have seisin or have apetite Cape only and Iustice Hutton said that it was adjudged in Sir Henry Browns case that if a man pleaded an insufficient Plea after the last continuance there the Plantiff shall have judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and for this he cited the new book of entries fo 57â— and this may not be a judgement by default for they both appeared and therefore he shall have the same judgement as if the first issue had been tried for him and it was said in this case though the Defendant did demur generally yet this is very good The residue of Trinity Term in the 22. year of King James GOdsel an Attorney brought an action upon the case for words and he laid in his declaration that the Defendant spoke those words among other Master Godsel is a knave for he forged false deeds for which he was imprisoned at York and should have lost his ears and the jury found only these words Godsel is a forger of writings and deserves to lose his ears and Hendon moved in arrest of judgement that the words which are found are not the words in the declaration for the words were there that he forged deeds and it is only found to be writings and it was adjudged in this Court between Brown and Ellis that for saying an Attorney had forged writings no Action will lie for they are too general and besides it doth not at all appertain to him to make writings and so for Nowels Case he is Cooped up for forging of writings and it was adjudged not to be actionable and so to say he is a forger of writings by which he had cozned fatherless Children the words are not actionable because he did not say Deeds and upon this motion and reason the judgement in this case was arrested This case is Entred Hillarie the 21. Jac. Roll. 550. Sir George Trenchard against Peter Hoskins TRenchard brought an Action of Covenant against Peter Hoskins and declared upon an indenture bearing date the 19th of September 44. of Eliz. made between Iohn Hoskins father of the Defendant and the Defendant on the one part and the Plantiff on the other parte by which they bargained and sold certain lands to the