See the Case 14 Eliz. in Dyer L. Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Tottenham and Bedingfields Case Owen Rep. 35 83. IN an Accompt by Tottenham against Bedingfield who pleaded That he never was his Bailiff to render accompt the Case was That the Plaintiff was possessed of a Parsonage for Term of years and the Defendant not having any Interest nor claiming any Title in them took the Tythes being set forth and severed from the 9 parts and carried them away and sold them Vpon which the Plaintiff brought an Action of Accompt And by Manwood Iustice the Action doth not lie for here is not any privity for wrongs are always done without privity And yet I do agree That if one doth receive my Rents I may implead him in a Writ of Accompt and then by the bringing of my Action there is privity and although he hath received my Rent yet he hath not done any wrong to me for that it is not my Mony until it be paid unto me or unto another for my use and by my Commandment and therefore notwithstanding such his Receipt I may resort to the Tenant of the Land who ought to pay unto me the said Rent and compel him to pay it to me again and so in such case where no wrong is done unto me Hob. 32â— I may make a privity by my consent to have a Writ of Accompt But if one disseiseth me of my Land and taketh the profits thereof upon that no Action of Accompt lieth for it is meerly a wrong And in the principal case so soon as the Tythes were severed by the Parishioners there they were presently in the Plaintiff and therefore the Defendant by the taking of them was a wrong doer and no Action of Accompt for the same lieth against him And upon the like reason was the Case of Monox of London lately adjudged which was That one devised Land to another 1 Len. 266. and died and the Devisee entred and held the Land devised for the space of 20 years and afterwards for a certain cause the Devise was adjudged void and for that he to whom the Land descended brought an Action of Accompt against the Devisee And it was adjudged That the Action did not lie Harper contrary For here the Plaintiff may charge the Defendant as his Proctor and it shall be no Plea for the Defendant to say That he was not his Proctor no more than in an Accompt against one who holdeth as Gardian in Socage it is no plea for him to say that he is not Prochein Amy to the Plaintiff Dyer The Action doth not lie If an Accompt be brought against one as Receiver he ought to be charged with the Receipt of the Mony and an Accompt doth not lie where the party pretends to be Owner as against an Abater or Disseisor but if one claimeth as Bailiff he shall be charged and so it is of Gardian in Socage Latch 8. And it was agreed That if a Disseisor assign another to receive the Rents that the Disseisee cannot have an Accompt against such a Receivor LI. 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards NOte That this Case was ruled in the Court of Wards That where Tenant of the King of Lands holden by Knights Service in chief made a Feoffment in Fee of the same Lands to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his younger Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffor and died his eldest Son within age That the Queen should have the Wardship of his body and of the third part of the Land and when the eldest Son comes of full age that the younger Son should sue Livery and pay Primer Seisin according to the rate and value of the whole Land viz. of the third part as in possession and of the two parts as a Reversioner For the remainder to the right Heirs of the Feoffee is in truth a Reversion for the Fee simple was never out of him because there is not any consideration as to that nor any Vse expressed And because Livery shall not be sued by parcels the younger Son shall not be suffered to sue Livery of the third part presently and respite the residue as to the two parts in Reversion until the Reversion fall but he shall sue Livery presently as well of the two parts in reversion as of the third part in possession and if the eldest Son had been of full age at the time of the death of his Father the younger Son should pay Primer Seisin as to the third part the whole value of it for one year as in possession and as to the two parts the moiety of the value of a year as of a Reversion LII Oliver Breers Case 15 Eliz. In the Court of Wards OLiver Breer who was Tenant in Chief by Knights Service made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of A. his eldest Son and Heir for life and after to the use of the first begotten Son of the said A. in tail and afterwards to the use of the second Son of the said A. c. and for default of such issue to the use of the right Heirs of the Feoffor Oliver died the said A. his Son being of full age It was holden by the Council of the Court of Wards That he should pay for his first Primer Seisin a third part as in possession and two parts as a reversion See the Case before LIII Mich. 15 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte 1 Roll. 626 This Case was moved to the Iustices in the Court of the Kings Bench A Man had Issue two Daughters by divers Women and being seised of Lands in Fee he made his Will and by the same Devised That his Wife should have the moyety of his Lands for years and that his eldest Daughter at the day of her Marriage should enter into the other moyety his eldest Daughter married and died without Issue And the Question was Whether her Vncle should have that moyety or the fourth part of the whole Land. Catline conceived and said That when the Devise which was made to the eldest Daughter that she might enter after certain years is not the Inheritance in her presently and the other words void So he said here That it is not a purchase in the eldest Daughter but both the Daughters should enter in Common as one Heir to their Father until the Marriage and then the Inheritance which was once settled in them should not be removed Southcote Iustice said There are no words of Limitation of any Estate that the Daughter should have after the Marriage and therefore the Devise was void and if he had limited that the Daughter after Marriage should have it for life the Fee-simple is vested in her before and then she cannot have it for life And he said That if a Lease be made to the eldest Daughter for years by the Father and afterwards
him any other surety for his Debt he is contented so to do And John Stampe offered to the said P. the said B. and C. and he accepted the same and at the request of the said John Stampe granted his Interest to them 2 Feb. 22 Eliz. P. having notice of the Grant before made to the said G. Vpon which G. enformed against P. upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. It was holden in this Case by Periam and Meade Iustice That P. was not within the penalty of the Statute For P. granted his Interest to B. and C. at the suit and at the request of John Stampe who was the Mortgager for assurance of his Debt which he ought to them And therefore it shall not be intended that that Grant was made for any maintenance or for any unlawful cause against the Statute And also John Stampe who granted unto P. had possession and received the Issues and Profits of the said Lands for a whole year before the Grant notwithstanding that he was not in possession by a whole year next before the day of the date of the Grant. Godb. 450. As if a Man be in possession or hath received the Issues and Profits for a whole year and afterwards a stranger enters upon him and hath the possession for the space of a Quarter of a year or half a year yet he who was in possession by a year before may grant his Interest without danger of the Statute c. CXX Pasch 24 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte Per totam Curiam 2 Len. 35. A man made his Will in this manner scil I Will and Bequeath my Land to A. And the name of the Devisor is not in the whole Will Yet the Devise is good enough by Averment of the name of the Devisor And for proof that the same is his Will If one lying in extremis having an intent to devise his Lands by Word makes such devise but doth not command the same to be put in writing but another without the knowledge or Commandment of the Devisor putteth it in writing in the life-time of the Devisor the same is a good Devise For it is sufficient if the Devise be reduced into writing during the life of the Devisor CXXI Pepy's Case Pasch 25 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. WAste was brought by F. and his Wife against Pepy and declared That the said Pepy was seised and enfeoffed certain persons to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of the Wife of the Plaintiff and her Heirs The Defendant pleaded That the said Feoffment was to the use of himself and his Heirs in Fee c. absque hoc that it was to the uses as in the Count Vpon which they were at Issue And it was found by Verdict That the said Feoffment was to the uses contained in the Count but further found That the Estate of the Defendant by the Limitation of the use was priviledged with the impunity of Waste scil without Impeachment of Waste It was moved If upon that Verdict The Plaintiff should have Iudgment Anderson and Rhodes Iustices conceived That he should for that the matter in Issue is found for the Plaintiff and that is the Feoffment to uses contained in the Count and this impunity of Waste is a Forreign matter not within the Charge of the Iury and therefore the finding of the same is but matter of surplusage As if I plead a Feoffment of J. S. to which the other pleads That he did not enfeoff and the Iury find a Conditional Feoffment the Court shall not respect the finding of the Condition for it was not in Issue and no advantage shall be ever had of such a Liberty if it be not pleaded 30 H. 8. Dyer 41. In Dower the Tenant pleaded Ne unque seisi que Dower c. The Tenant pleaded That before the Coverture of the Demandant one A. was seised and gave the Land whereof Dower is demanded to the Husband of the Demandant in tail who made a Feoffment A stranger took the Demandant to Wife took back an Estate in Fee and died seised having Issue inheritable Now although upon the truth of the matter she is nâ—t Dowable de jure yet forasmuch as the parties were at Issue upon a point certain no forrein nor strange matter not in Question betwixt the parties shall be respected in the point of Iudgment But if the Defendant had pleaded it in Bar he might have foreclosed the Demandant of her Dower See 38 Ass 27. 47 E. 19. In a Praecipe quod reddat upon the default of the Tenant came one and shewed How that the Tenant who made default was but Tenant for life of the Lands in demand the Reversion in Fee to himself and prayed to be received The Demandant counterpleaded the Resceit Dicendo That the Tenant had Fee c. Vpon which Issue was taken And it was found That neither the Tenant nor he who prayed to be received had any thing in the Land. And in that Case The Court did not regard the matter which was superfluous in the Verdict For they were at Issue upon a point certain scil whether the Tenant was seised in Fee For it is confessed of the one side and of the other that he had an Estate for life and of that matter the Iury was not charged and they are not to enquire of that And so it is found against the Demandant by which the Resceit was granted See 7 H. 6. 20. The parties were at Issue upon a Dying seised which is found by Verdict but the Iury find further That the other party made continual Claim The said continual Claim shall not be respected in point of Iudgment because it was not pleaded in Avoidance of the Disceit c. Windham Iustice to the contrary because it appeareth to us upon the Verdict That the Plaintiff hath not cause of Action and therefore he shall not have Iudgment As in Detinue the Plaintiff declares upon a Baylment by his own hands The Defendant pleads Ne Detinue pas the Iury find the Detinue but upon Baylment by another hand In that case notwithstanding that the Detinue be found yet the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment But Anderson Rhodes and Periam conceived That in the principal Case Iudgment should be given for the Plaintiff For in no case the party shall have advantage of that liberty of impunity of Waste if he doth not plead it And the Iurors are not to meddle with any matter which is not in issue and if they do It is but matter of surplusage and to no purpose and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff See the Number Roll Pasch 25 Eliz. Rot. 602. CXXII Skipwith's Case Pasch 20 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Trespass It was found by a special Verdict Godbolt 14 143. Co. of Copy-holds 94. That the Lands were Copy-hold Lands That the Custom of the Mannor was That Quaelibet Foemina Viro Co-operta poterit
John the Father in three parts to be divided And afterwards the Father by his Will devised the Lands holden in Socage unto his said Wife for life with divers Remainders over It was the Opinion of the Court in this Case that the Devise was utterly void by the Statute CLV Brett and Peagrims Case Pasch 26 Eliz. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared that whereas he himself and the Defendant submitted themselves to the Award of A.B. and C.D. and whereas the said Arbitrators upon the hearing of the Causes between them did intend and were resolved amongst other matters of their Award to award that two Obligations by which the Plaintiff was severally bounden to the Defendant for the payment of certain sums of Mony to the Defendant should be delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff to be cancelled The Defendant promised in Consideration that that Article of the delivery of the said two Obligations should be left out of the Award that he himself would gratis deliver them to the Plaintiff without any Coertion or direction of the Award and further declared that the said Article ad specialem instantiam ipsius Querentis was left out by the said Arbitrators out of their Award and notwithstanding that that the Defendant had not redelivered ut supra c. but had put the same in suit against the Plaintiff In this Case upon the matter ut supra c. it was adjudged for the Plaintiff CLVI Nich. Lee's Case Pasch 26. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Cro. 26. 1 Len. 285. 1 Inst 113. Dyer 177. 219. a. 2 Len. 220. NIch. Lee by his Will devised his Land to W. his second Son And if he do depart this World not having Issue then I Will my Sons-in-Law shall sell my Land. The Devisor at the time of the Devise having six Sons-in-Law died W. had Issue John and died John died without Issue one of the Sons-in-Law of the Devisor died the five surviving Sons-in-Law sold the Land. 1. It was clearly agreed by the whole Court that although the words of the Will be ut supra If W. my Son depart this World not having Issue c. And that W. hath Issue which dieth without Issue there although it cannot be said Literally that William did depart this World not having Issue yet the intent of the Devisor is not to be restrained to the Letter but Construction shall be made that whensoever W. dieth in Law upon the matter without Issue the same Land shall be subject to sale according to the Authority committed by the Devisor to his Sons-in-Law And now upon the matter W. is dead without Issue As in a Formedon in the Reverter or Remainder although the Donee in tail hath Issue yet if afterwards the Estate tail be spent the Writ shall suppose that the Donee died without Issue a fortiori in the case of a Devise such Construction shall be made As to the other point concerning the sale of the Land Wray demanded if the Sons-in-Law were named in the Will The Clerks answered they were not See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 31 and 39 Ass 17. Fitz. title Executors 117. Such a sale is good in case of Executors See also 23 Eliz. Dyer 371. And see 4 and 5 Mar. Dyer Land devised in tail and if the Devisee shall die without Issue that then the Land shall be sold pro optimo valore by his Executors una cum assensu of A. if A. dieth before sale the power of the Executors is determined And afterwards it was clearly resolved by the whole Court that the sale by the manner aforesaid was good and Iudgment given accordingly CLVII Rag and Bowley's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ERror was brought upon a Fine and the Error was assigned in the Proclamations Whereupon issued a Certiorari to the Custos Brevium who certified the Proclamations by which Certificate it appeared that two of the said Proclamations were made in one day upon which the Defendant prayed another Scire facias to the Chirographer in whose Office it appeared that all the Proclamations were well and duly made It was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice in this Case that the Defendant ought to have his preyer for the Chirographer maketh the Proclamations and he is the principal Officer as to them And the Custos Brevium hath but the abstract of the Proclamations and we may in discretion amend them upon the matter appearing But the other Iustices seemed to be of a contrary Opinion for that the Proclamations being once certified by the Custos Brevium who is the principal Officer we ought not afterwards to resort to the Chirographer who is the inferior Officer And afterwards the Clerks of the Common Pleas were examined of the matter aforesaid by the Iustices of the Kings Bench and they answered according to that which was said by Wray Chief Iustice Wherefore it was awarded by the Court that a new Certiorari be directed to the Chirographer who Certified the Proclamations to be well and duly made And thereupon the Court awarded that the Proclamations in the Office of the Custos Brevium should be amended according to the Proclamations in the Custody and the Office of the Chirographer Note In the same Case before the Writ brought a stranger had brought a Writ of Error against the same Defendant upon the same Fine upon which the transcript of the Fine and Proclamations are removed in Banco and after the Plaintiff is Non-suit Now another who hath Cause may have a Writ of Error quod coram vobis residet CLVIII Taverner and Cromwell's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. UPon an Evidence unto a Iury 3 Cro. 353. containing difficulty and matter in Law it was found viz. that the Bishop of Norwich 10 H. 8. was seised of the Mannor of Northelman in the right of his Bishoprick and at his Court holden within the same Mannor granted parcel of the Demesnes of the said Mannor to one Taverner and his Heirs where of the said Land in truth there was not any Demise by Copy before And so the said Land continued in Copy until 23 H. 8. at which time Taverner committed a forfeiture which being presented the Bishop seised the Land as forfeited and granted the same again by Copy to Taverner in Fee And so from thence it continued in Copy until 8 Eliz. which Interval between 23 H. 8. and 8 Eliz. amounted to 47 years It was the Opinion of the whole Court in this Case that the Continuance for 50 years is requisite to fasten a Customary Condition upon the Land against the Lord. It was also agreed by the Court that although the Original Commencement and that Customary Interest did commence 10 H. 8. ut supra from which time unto 8 Eliz. 60 years passed yet the seisure for a forfeiture which happened 23 H. 8. interrupted utterly the Continuance from the time which might by the Law have perfected the Customary Interest So
awarded not good p. 100 Two Matters are in Issue the Jury find the one and says nothing to the other if a good Verdict p. 149 Where eating and drinking of the Jurors at their own charges doth not make the Verdict void otherwise if at the charges of any of the parties p. 267 Unity Of possession where shall extinct a Common p. 127 Usurpation Where puts the King out of possession where not p. 17 W. WAger of Law Where cannot be upon an Agreement that one Creditor be acquitted against the other for Debt p. 212 258 Warrants Of Attorny to acknowledge a Deed not good p. 84 Warranty Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee a collateral Ancestor releaseth with Warranty a bar to the Issue p. 212 Wasts p. 7 60 What a sufficient Plea in it what not p. 9 Wills General words in a Will where not enlarge special words before in it p. 18 Words in a Will or Testament conditional where construed not to give tail by Implication Upon a Devise for three where the words of the Will shall be taken distributively and not jointly p. 117 Not to be taken by Implication p. 131 In a Will a thing implyed shall not control a thing expressed p. 167 Withernam Upon return of a Withernam if the Plaintiff tendereth the Damages he shall have a special Writ to restore his Chattel p. 236 Writs In a recovery upon a Writ in the Court of a Mannor the party who recovered in it cannot be put in possession with the Posse Comitatus p. 99 In the nature of a Scire Facias out of the Court of Admiralty to repeal Letters Patents of an Office is good p. 192 FINIS An Exact TABLE to the Three Parts of Reports of Mr. William Leonard And a Correction of divers Mistakes in Printing of Cases and other Matters in all the Three BOOKS A Denotes the first B the second and C the third Book A Abatement of Writs IF one of three Executors die pend brevi the Writ abates A. 44. Administrator sued as Executor may abate the Writ if the Administrat was committed before Action brought A. 69. A Feme sole Plaintiff takes Baron the Writ is not abated but abateable A. 168 169. If matter of Abatement appear in any part of the Record the Court after Judgment will reverse the Judgment A. 255. Action does not abate if the Defendant die after the first Judgment in Trespass and before the Return of the Writ of Enquiry A. 263. Death after Issue joyned no cause of Abatement in the Civil-Law A. 278. The Writ shall abate if it appear the Plaintiff cannot recover the thing in demand A. 333 334. In what Real Actions two Tenants may plead several Tenancy B. 8. It an Action shall abate after the Verdict if it appear to be brought before time A. 186 187. B. 20. Writ shall abate if the Feme be put before the Baron B. 59. Where upon pleading Joyntenancy or Villenage the Writ shall abate without any answer to the Pleas B. 161 162. Where a Writ shall abate Ex Officio Curiae B. 162. A Writ of Deceit not abated by the death of one Defendant C. 3. Abeyance In what Cases a Use may be in Abeyance B. 18. C. 21 22 23. The like of a Remainder B. 73. Acceptance Where the Issue of him in Remainder accepts the Rent of Tenant for life it is a good affirmance of his Estate A. 243. What Acceptance of Rent by Lessor shall bar him of his Re-entry for non-payment A. 262. The Acceptance of Rent by the Feme confirms the Lease of the Husband C. 271. The like by Issue in Tail of a Lease not warranted by the Statute C. 271. The like by an Infant at his full Age C. 271. The like of a Lease by a Predecessor and the Successor accepts the Rent C. 271. By the Wives Acceptance of Dower out of Lands exchanged she agrees to the Exchange C. 271. One disclaims and after the Lord accepts the Rent of the Tenant the Lord is barred of his right Sur Disclaimer C. 272. Pending a Cessavit Tenant aliened the Lord accepts Services from the Alienee he is barred C. 272. Accord and Concord No Bar if not executed A. 19. C. 212. Account Duresse a good Bar to it A. 13. Capias ad Comp. after a former executed A. 87. The power of Auditors A. 219. Of what things an Auditor by Deed may make Allowance A. 219. The power of an Auditor deputed by a private person A. 219. The difference of an Auditor deputed by Parol and by Deed A. 219. After Account and the Defendant found in Arrear and then the Defendant dies yet the Plaintiff shall recover A. 263. Lies not for the profits of Lands if the Defendant were in by Title A. 226. C. 24. If the Jury ought to assess Damages A. 302. B. 118 196. C. 150 192 230. What may be pleaded in Ear or must be pleaded in discharge before the Auditors B. 30 31 195. If a Factor account to one of many joynt Traders it is sufficient B. 75 76. If the Defendant plead that the Plaintiff gave him the Goods he must traverse that he was Bailiff to render account B. 195. If it lies against a meer Trespasser or wrongdoer C. 24. Where Account or an Action upon the Case lies against one who receives Mony to buy Cattle and does not buy them C. 38. In some Cases it lies against an Apprentice C. 62. Action upon the Case for Tort See Nusance Trover Slander For Erecting a Fould-course in disturbance of the Lord who had one by Prescription A. 11. By a Father against the Master of his Son for beating and laming his Son whereby he was disparaged in Marriage A. 50. Where it lies for malitiously indicting of Felony A. 107 108. Lies and not Trespass for pulling down Hurdles in a Market A. 108 109. Lies against an Under-Sheriff who took Mony to return but did not return a Summons A. 146. Against a Justice of Peace for Arresting one for Felony without accusation A. 187. Against a Mayor for not taking Bail to an Action A. 189. By Tenant in ancient Demesne for taking Goods for Toll A. 231 232. B. 190. By a Sheriff against a Prisoner who escaped out of Execution satisfaction being acknowledged A. 237. If it lies for retaining anothers hired Servant A. 240. Lies for a Tenant in Fee for a Nusance though he may have an Assise A. 247 273. Con. C. 13. If it lies for diverting a Mill-stream without Prescription A. 273. If it lies against a Justice of Peace for refusing to examine one who is Robbed A. 323 324. For conspiring with a Factor to cheat the Plaintiff who was a Joynt Trader with the Defendants in Account B. 75 76. For laying too much weight on a Floor which fell into the Plaintiffs Wares B. 93. An over-loading a borrowed Horse B. 104. By a Commoner for over-charging the Common with Conies B. 203. Against
Case 18 Eliz. Plow Com. 485 486. Where it is holden That upon Attainder of Treason by Act of Parliament the Lands were not in the King without Office in the life of the person attainted upon the words of the Act shall forfeit See Stamford 54 55. acc 3. He conceived That this Interest which came to the King by this Attainder was but a Chattel and then it is released by the Pardon And so he conceived If it be a Freehold For the words of the General Pardon are large and liberal Pardon and Release all manner of Treasons c. And all other things causes c. and here forfeitures are pardoned And also this word Things is a transcendent c. And although it be a general word yet by the direction of the General Pardon it ought to be beneficially expounded and extended as if all things had been especially set down Also the words are Pardon them and their Heirs therefore the same extends to Inheritances for any Offence not excepted for there is the word Heirs And the third branch doth concern only Chattels and that is by the word Grant where the former is by the words Release and Acquit See Br. Charter of Pardon 71. 33 H. 8. Tenant of the King dieth seised the Heir intrudes Office is found in that case by Pardons of all Intrusions the Offence is pardoned but not the Issues and Profits But by the Pardon aforesaid all is pardoned And here in our Case the Office is void For the Statute makes all Precepts Conditions void c. being awarded upon such Forfeitures See also in the second Branch Vexed and inquieted in Body Good Lands c. And see also amongst the Exceptions That persons standing endicted of wilful Murder and forfeiture of Goods Lands Tenements grown by any Offence committed by such person By which he conceived That if that Exception had not been the Land of such a person if he had been attainted upon such Indictment should be forfeited As to the Traverse he conceived That in as much as the Office is true our plea is a Monstrans de Droit although it concludes with a Traverse We vary from the Office in number of persons and in the day of the Feoffment and every Circumstance in the Kings Case is to be traversed and our plea in substance doth confess and avoid the Office. Although the King here be entituled by double matter of Record i. e. the Attainder and the Office yet one of the said Records is discharged by another Record i. e. the Pardon and then there is but one Record remaining scil the Office and therefore our Traverse doth lie And he conceived That at the Common Law there was a Traverse as where it was found by Office That the Lessee of the King had done Waste or cessed for two years and there it is said That the Lessee and Tenant in an Action brought against them may traverse the Office Therefore traverse was at the Common Law where the King was entituled by single matter of Record So upon an Office finding an Alienation without Licence Traverse was by the Common Law. See Traverse in such Case in the Case of William de Herlington 43 Ass 28. See Br. Traverse 54. Petition is by the Common Law and Traverse by the Statute Frowick in his Reading See Stamf. Prerogat 60. That Traverse in the Case of Goods was at the Common Law but Traverse for Lands found by Office by 34 E. 3. Cap. 14. therefore the remedy was by Petition See now Cook 4. Part the Sadler's Case 55 56. Traverse was at the Common Law concerning Freehold and Inheritance but that was in special Cases when by the Office the Land is not in the Kings hands nor the King by that is in possession but only by the Office and entituled to the Action and cannot make seisure without suit there in a Scire facias brought by the King in the nature of such an Action to which he is entituled the party may appear unto the Scire facias and traverse the Office by the Common-Law CCXXXVII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Writ was awarded out of the Court of Admiralty against Sir Tho. Bacon and Sir Tho. Heydon to shew cause wherefore Whereas the Earl of Lincoln late High Admiral of England had granted to them by Patent to be Vice Admirals in the Counties of Norfolk and Suffolk the said Letters Patents ought not to be repealed and annulled And so the said Writ was in the nature of a Scire facias It was moved by Cook That although the Admiral had but an Estate for life yet the Patent did continue in force after his death As the Iustices here of the Common Pleas although they have their places but for life may grant Offices which shall be in force after their death And because the same matter is determinable at the Common Law he prayed a Prohibition For in the Admiralty they would judge according to the Civil Law The Court gave day to the other side to shew cause why the Prohibition should not be awarded CCXXXVIII Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 1 Len. 302. Ante 150. Post 230. ACcompt was brought by Harris against Baker and damages were given by the Iury It was moved to the Court That damages ought not to be given by way of damages but the damages of the Plaintiff shall be considered of by way of Arrearges But see the Case Hill. 29 Eliz. in C. B. betwixt Collet and Andrews And yet 10 H. 6. 18. in Accompt the Plaintiff Counted to his damage but did not recover damages 2 H. 7. 13. 21 H. 6. 26. The Plaintiff shall not recover damages expresly but the Court shall given Quoddam incrementum to the Arrearages Cook said That it had been adjudged That the Plaintiff should recover Damages in an Accompt ratione Implicationis non Detentionis CCXXXIX Long 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden in this Case If a Feoffment in Fee be made of a Mannor to which an Advowson is appendant and Livery is made in the Demesnes but no Attornment that in such case the Advowson shall pass but none of the Services CCXL Barns Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. BArns brought an Action of Trespass for taking of his sack of Corn The Defendants justified in the behalf of the Town of Lawson in the County of Cornwell because That King Phil. and Queen Mary granted to them of the said Town a Market to be holden within the said Town and that the Plaintiff came to the said Town with a sack of Corn and the Vendor would not pay Toll for which cause they took the said sack of Corn. And Iudgment was given for the Defendant Vpon which Error was brought and assigned for Error because that the Defendant pleads the Letters Patents with the date of the place year and day without saying Magno sigillo Angliae sigillat For it was holden that
that the Queens Attorny said That it is true that Thomas Robinson was possessed but it is further said That Thomas granted it to Paramour and so the Interest of Thomas is confessed on both sides and therefore the Iury shall not be received to say the contrary But the Opinion of Manwood Chief Baron was That if the parties do admit a thing per nient dedire the Iury is not bound by it but where upon the pleading a special matter is confessed there the Iury shall be bound by it And afterwards the Issue was found against Robinson the Defendant CCLXXIII Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Debt by A. against B. upon an Obligation the Defendant pleaded tender of the Mony according to the Condition upon which the parties were at Issue And after the Defendant pleaded That after the Darrein Continuance the Debt now in demand was Attached in the Defendants hands according to the Custom of London for the debt of C. to whom the Plaintiff was endebted It was the Opinion of the Court That the Plea was insufficient for it is altogether contrary to the first Plea. And also the Court held That in an Action for the debt depending here in this Court the debt cannot be attached and the Court would not suffer a Demurrer to be joyned upon it but over-ruled the Case without any Argument For it was said by Wray Chief Iustice That it was against the Iurisdiction of the Court and the Priviledge of it CCLXXIV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte It was holden by the Court That if a Copyholder in Fee dieth seised and the Lord admits a stranger to the Land who entreth that he is but a Tenant at Will and not a Disseisor to the Copyholder who hath the Land by descent because he cometh in by the assent of the Lord c. CCLXXV Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought de uno Cubiculo and Exception was taken to it But the Exception was disallowed The Declaration was special viz Leas unius Cubiculi per nomen unius Cubiculi being in such a House in the middle story of the said House And the Declaration was holden good enough and the word Cubiculum is a more apt word than the word Camera And such was the Opinion of Wray Chief Iustice And it was said That Ejectione firmae brought de una rooma had been adjudged good in this Court. CCLXXVI Johnson and Bellamy's Case Rot. 824. Mich. 30 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Ejectione firmae It was holden by Special Verdict 1 Cro. 122. That W. Graunt was seised of certain Lands and by his Will devised the same to Joan his Wife for life And further he willed That when Rich. his Brother should come to the age of 25 years that he should have the Land to him and the Heirs of his body lawfully begotten W. Graunt died having Issue of his body who was his Heir Rich. before he attained the age of 25 years levied a Fine of the said Lands with proclamations in the life and during the seisin of Joan to A. sic ut partes finis nihil habuerunt And If this Fine should bar the Estate in tail was the Question And the Iustices cited the Case of the Lord Zouch which was adjudged Mich. 29 Eliz. Where the Case was Tenant in tail discontinued to E. and afterwards levied a Fine to B. That although that partes finis nihil habuerunt yet the said Fine did bind the Estate tail But the Serjeants at the Bar argued That there was a difference between the Case cited and the Case at Bar For in the Case cited the Fine was pleaded in Bar but here it was not pleaded but found by Special Verdict To which it was said by the Court That the same is not any difference For the Fine by the Statute is not any matter of Estoppel or Conclusion but by the Statute binds and extincts the entail and the right of it And Fines are as sufficient to bind the right of the entail when they are found by Special Verdict as when they are pleaded in Bar. And Periam Iustice said A Collateral Warranty found by Special Verdict is of as great force as pleaded in Bar. And afterwards Iudgment was given That the Estate tail by that Fine was utterly barred and extinct CCLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for life rendring Rent at Michaelmas and further Leased the same to the Executors of the Lessee until Michaelmas after the death of the Lessee It was affirmed by Cook That in that Case it was adjudged That the word Until shall be construed to extend to the Term unto the end of the Feast of St. Michael and so the Rent then due payable by the Executors for without such Construction no Rent should be then due because the Term ended before Michaelmas CCLXXVIII Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ONe was bounden to stand to the Award of two Arbitrators who awarded That the party should pay to a stranger or his Assigns 200 l. before such a day The stranger before the day died B. took Letters of Administration The Question was If the Obligee should pay the Mony to the Administrator or if the Obligation was discharged It was the Opinion of the whole Court That the Mony should be paid to the Administrator for he is an Assignee And by Gawdy If the word Assigns had been left out yet the payment ought to be made to the Administrator Which Cook granted CCLXXIX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Defendant in Debt being ready at the Bar to wage his Law was examined by the Court upon the points of the Declaration and the cause of the Debt upon which it appeared that the Plaintiff and Defendant were reciprocally endebted the one to the other And accompting together they were agreed That each of them should be quit of the other It was the Opinion of Periam and Anderson Iustices That upon that matter the Defendant could not safely wage his Law For it is but an agreement which cannot be executed but by Release or Acquittance CCLXXX Pasch 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TEnant in tail Covenanted with his Son to stand seised to the use of himself for life and afterwards to the use of his Son in tail the remainder to the right Heirs of the Father The Father levied a Fine with proclamations and died It was moved by Fenner If any Estate passed to the Son by that Covenant for it is not any discontinuance and so nothing passed but during his life and all the Estates which are to begin after his death are void Anderson Iustice The Estate passeth until c. And he cited the Case of one Pitts where it was adjudged That if Tenant in tail of an Advowson in gross grants the same in Fee and a Collateral Ancestor releaseth with warranty and dieth
1 And. 234. every one ought to assent Wray There the Ordinance made was to charge the Inheritance but here it is only to charge their Goods wherefore the assent of the greater part is sufficient And afterwards a Procedendo was granted CCCLV. Pendleton and Green's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. PEndleton sued Green in the Spiritual Court for Tythes Ante 203. 1 Len. 94. who pleaded That Pendleton was not lawful Incumbent but one Taylor and that plea those of the Spiritual Court would not allow to the Parishioner to plead to the right of the Incumbency and thereupon he prayed a Prohibition for otherwise he should be twice charged for Tythes and therefore a Prohibition was granted CCCLVII Knevytt and Cope's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. KNevytt brought Ejectione firmae against Cope and declared Quod 4 Len. 59. cum John Hopkins by his Indenture bearing date the 20 of May 32 Eliz. had let to him his House and two Yard-Lands containing 40 Acres of Land Meadow and Pasture apud Tythingham de Forecomb in parochia de S. c. upon Not guilty pleaded The Venire facias was de Tythingham de Forecomb Exception was taken by Cook That the Declaration had not any certainty for it is not shewed in certain How much there was of Meadow how much of Land and how much of Pasture there was contained in the said two Yard-Lands and the Iury may find the Defendant guilty as to the Land only but not to the residue Also he hath not shewed in the Declaration When the Lease was made but only saith That by Indenture bearing date the 20 of May c. but doth not shew any day of delivery of the Indenture for then the Lease takes effect To which Exception It was said by the Court That the Declaration as to that was good enough for it shall be intended to have been delivered at the day of the date Ante 193. Another Exception was taken to the Visne Because that the Visne ought to be of the Parish and not of Tythingham c. See 11 H. 7. 23 24. Forcible Entry in the Mannor of B. in B. the Visne shall not be of the Mannor of B. but of B. Gawdy Iustice You shall never have a Visne of the Parish for divers Towns may be in one Parish but here the Visne is good of Tythingham c. for it may be that it is a Town Cook It is but a Ville Conus from which a Visne cannot come CCCLVIII Taylor and Fisher's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. TAylor brought an Action of Trespass against Fisher for entring into his House and taking and carrying away of his Goods To which the Defendant pleaded That before the Trespass supposed one A. was possessed of the said Goods and the said Goods being in the House of the said Plaintiff the said A. sold them to the Defendant by force whereof he was possessed And so possessed came to the Plaintiffs House where c. And by assent and licence of the Plaintiffs Wife he entred into the said House and carried away the said Goods c. Vpon which there was a Demurrer It was holden That the same is no plea for there is no Colour given to the Plaintiff and the licence given by the Wife is not any matter for the justifying of the Entry And as to the Goods the plea was holden good For if A. might sell them being in the House of another and not in his own possession is scrupulous to the Lay-people Wray If the Goods of the Defendant were in the House of the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant it had perhaps been a good plea but that is not alledged here Cook 30 E. 3. 23. In Trespass for breaking of his Pound the Defendant said That he came to the place where the Cattel were impounded and there found the Plaintiffs Wife to whom he offered Pledges for the Cattel impounded to make Amends according to reason and prayed to have deliverance of the Cattel and the Plaintiffs Wife delivered them without that that he brake the Pound c. And it was said That this want of Colour is but matter of form which he ought to have alledged upon his Demurrer or otherwise he shall not have advantage of it Wray Iustice The Defendant in his plea doth not meet with the Plaintiff Therefore the plea is not good in substance It was Adjourned CCCLIX Downhall and Catesby's Case Pasch 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 4 Len. 113. the parties were at Issue And it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Banco because that some of the Iurors did eat and drink before that they gave their Verdict That the Court would not receive the Postea The Court said That we cannot do here for we do not know if your Information be false or not and that matter ought to have been examined by the Iustices of Nisi prius and they ought to certifie us of it and then we shall have good cause to stay it And it was then said there That if any of the Iurors eat and drink before the Verdict at their own Costs that the same doth not make the Verdict void but otherwise if it be of the Costs of the Plaintiff or the Defendant CCCLX Withrington and Delabar's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Appeal of Murder by Withrington against Delabar of the death of her Husband The Defendant pleaded never accoupled in lawful Matrimony And pleaded over Not guilty The Plaintiff replyed Lawfully accoupled but did not reply over to the Felony It way moved as a discontinuance of the whole Wray If the Defendant pleads matter tryable at the Common Law and over to the Felony there the Plaintiff ought to reply to both but where the first matter is not tryable by the Common Law there the same is not needful Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt CCCLXI. Lake's Case Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. STephen Lake Commissary of the Bishop of Canterbury Fr. Alredge Register and R. Hunt Apparitor were endicted of Extortion that they colore officiorum suorum had malitiose accepted and received 11 s. 6 d. for the Absolution of one B. who was excommunicated where they ought to have but 2 s. 6 d. And Exception was taken to this Indictment because that all their Offences are put together scil colore Officiorum suorum whereas the particular Offence of every Offendor ought to be specially set down but here they are confounded Which see by the Statute of 25 E. 3. 9. That Ordinaries shall not be impeached by such general Indictments unless they say and put in certain In what thing and of what and in what manner the said Ordinaries have committed Extortion But that Exception was not allowed for of that the party grieved cannot have notice for they took in gross and afterwards parted it betwixt
In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 27. THe Case was That the Bishop of Exeter leased certain Lands in the County of Devon for years rendring Rent payable in Exeter aforesaid with Clause of Re-entry and the Bishop of Exeter had a Palace in Exeter aforesaid It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the Rent ought to be demanded at the said Palace and not elsewhere And if that the Lessee come to the Common Gate of the said Palace and there tender the Rent it is a good tender without more be the Gate shut or open notwithstanding that the Bishop be within the Palace and that neither he nor any of his Servants be at the Gate for to receive it for the Lessee is not tyed to open the Gate of the Palace if it be shut nor to enter into the Palace if it be open X. Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. COpyhold Land was surrendred to the use of the Wife for life the remainder to the use of the right Heirs of the Husband and Wife The Husband entred in the right of his Wife It was the Opinion of the Iustices in this Case That the remainder was executed for a Moyety presently in the Wife and the Husband of that was seised in the right his Wife and the Wife dying first that her Heir should have it 1 Roll. Lane and Pannel's Case But if the Husband had died first his Heir should have had one Moyety XI Joscelin and Sheltons Case Mich. 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. More Rep. 13. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That the Defendant in Consideration that the Son of the Plaintiff would marry the Daughter of the Defendant assumed and promised to pay to him 400 Marks in 7 years next ensuing by such portions And upon Non Assumpsit pleaded It was found for the Plaintiff It was Obiected in Arrest of Iudgment That one of the said 7 years was not incurred at the time of the Action brought c. and that appeared upon the Declaration so as the Plaintiff had not cause of Action for the whole Mony promised And for that cause the Writ was abated by the Court by award although it was after Verdict See Br. Title Action upon the Case 108. XII 2 and 3 Phil. and Mary In the Common Pleas. IN an Assise against 4. they were at Issue upon Nul Tenant del Franktenement nosme en le brief And it was found by the Assise That two of them were Disseisors and two Tenants And after Verdict and before Iudgment one of those who were found Tenants died And that was moved in Arrest of Iudgment But it was not allowed of by the Court Because the parties had not day in Court to plead it But it was said That after Iudgment given a Writ of Error lieth In the Time of Queen Elizabeth XIII Canons Case 1 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. UPon an Evidence to a Iury in the Common-Pleas 1 Roll. 839. Vpon an Issue there this Deed was given in Evidence viz. Sciant praesentes futuri Quod Ego Richardus Canon filius haeres Richandi Canon Dedi Concessi hac praesenti carta mea Confirmavi Willielmo Compton Militi Omnia Terr Tenementa c. ad usum mei praed Richardi Joannae uxoris meae pro termino vitae absque impetitione Vasti ac etiam rectorum haered mei praefat Richardi assignatorum meorum post decessum mei praefat Richardi Joannae uxoris meae Et si contingat me praefat Richardum obire sine exitu de Corpore meo procreato Tunc Volo quod omnia dict Terr Tenementa remaneant Tho. fratri meo rectis haeredibus de Corpore suo procreatis haeredib assignat eorum And it was the Opinion of the Iustices That a good Estate tail was by that Deed limited to the said Richard in use after the death of his Wife XIV Holt and Ropers Case 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin by Holt against Roper the Case was J. Abbot of W. Leased to T.M. Knight a Close of Land in B. for 44 years Post 242. 243. who thereof possessed was attainted of misprision of Treason and so forfeited to the King who seised the same The Abbot and his Covent surrendred 31 H. 8. the King Leased the same to Roper for 21 years and died King Ed. 6th in the fourth year of his Reign Leased the same to one Philips To have and to hold after the Term to T.M. ended for 21 years Roper surrendred to Queen Mary who Leased the same again to Roper for 30 years In this Case It was adjudged That the Lease made to Phillips was utterly void for that the King was deceived in his Grant For the Lease made to F.M. was long time before determined by extinguishment in the Person of the King who had it by forfeiture upon the Attainder of T.M. and the Statute of 1 E. 6. Cap. 8. shall not help that Lease notwithstanding the Non-recital or Mis-recital of Leases made before For here is not matter of recital but matter of Estate and Interest which is not well limited for the Commencement of it i. the Lease to Phillips For there is not any certainty of the Commencement of it For that Lease cannot begin after the Surrender of Roper for the words of the Limitation of the beginning of it cannot serve to such Construction XV. 2 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Term for years is devised to A. The Executors of the Devisor entred into the Land devised to the use of the Devisee It was the Opinion of the Court That the same was a sufficient possession to the Devisee XVI 3 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. TWo Coparceners were of a Reversion the one of them granted his Interest in it by Fine to another It was holden in that Case That the Conusee should have a Quid juris clamat for a Moyety of the said Reversion XVII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Lessor mortgaged his Reversion in Fee to the Lessee for years and at the day of Mortgage for payment of the Mony he paid the Mony It was holden in this Case That the Lease for years was not revived but utterly extinct XVIII Mich. 4 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. J.N. Cestuy que use in tail 14 H. 8. by Indenture between him on the one part and J.S. of the other part In Consideration of a Marriage between his Son and Heir apparent and Joan Daughter of the said J.S. to be had Covenanted with the said J.S. That neither he nor any of the Feoffees seised to his use have made or hereafter shall make any Estate Release Grant of Rent levy any Fine or do any other Incumbrance whatsoever of any of his Mannors Lands c. But that all the said Mannors c. shall immediately descend or remain to his said Son and the Heirs
Whereupon Vaughan asked him Wherefore he paid the Rent To whom the Lord Windsor answered That he paid the same during the lives of the Feoffees but after their deaths he paid nothing but notwithstanding that payment that the Feesimple remained in him and that his Counsel advised him to pay the Rent to the Heirs of Lewknor who was the Wife of the said Vaughan And Catline said That if a Fine be levied upon a Release in a Scire facias against the Conusor he shall not plead that the Conusor had not any thing in the Land at time of the Fine levied And he said further That if a Disseisor be and the Disseisee levieth a Fine upon a Release that thereby his Right is gone And Note That as to the principal Case Southcote was of Opinion That the Fee was not gained by the Fine levied by a stranger to him who had the Vse before the Statute of 27 H. 8. and that if no Feesimple was in the Lord Windsor at the time of the Lease made by him that the Lease could not be good nor the Action maintainable And because the Court was divided in Opinions in both Points Catline commanded the Iury to find a Special Verdict LXII Mich. Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte That it was said by the whole Court That if a Man delivereth Mony to another Man to buy Cattel or to Merchandise with although that the Mony be sealed up in a Bag yet the property of the Mony is to the Bailee and the Bailor cannot have an Action for the Mony but only an Accompt against the Bailee although that he never buyeth the Cattel or other things for the Auditors upon the Accompt shall allow him the sum and such other allowances as they shall think fit And that a stranger takes away the Mony after the death of the Bailee or in his life-time the Bailor shall not have an Action against the stranger but the Executors of the Bailee or the Bailee himself during his life And yet if the Bailee dieth no Action of Accompt lieth against his Executors because the Testator had the property of the Monies And therefore if he who takes the Mony from the Bailee promiseth the Bailor to pay him the like sum of Mony as the Bailee had received of him in his life and as should be truly proved by the Bailor there upon that Promise an Action upon the Case doth not lie against him who took away the Mony as Catline said In an Action upon the Case brought by the Master of the Rolls and another who supposed that they delivered 100 l. to one Moore and that he is dead and that the Mony came unto the hands of the Defendant and that thereupon he promised to pay the like sum which might be proved that Moore had of the Plaintiffs It was holden That the Action upon the Case did not lie Southcote Iustice said That although the property of the Mony be changed as before and that no Accompt lieth against a stranger Yet when he hath the Mony and for that cause promiseth to pay it as before it is reason that an Action upon the Case should lie upon his promise although the Law will not charge him nor the Executors upon an Accompt LXIII The Lord Cromwells Case Mich. 15 Eliz. Dyer 321 322. 2 Roll. 560 561. JEffery recited That a Replevin was brought by Franklin The Defendants made Conusans as Bailiffs of the Lord Cromwell because that the said Lord was seised of the Mannor of North-Elmes and that the Custom of the said Mannor is That the Homagers have used to make By-Laws when necessity shall be within the same Mannor and upon a pain and forfeiture and that the Lord of the Mannor for the time being might distrain in the Land of any for the Forfeiture And further saith That in Anno 6 of Ed. the 6th the Homage then whereof Franklin the Plaintiff was one made By-Law That none should put his Sheep to feed in the Pasture or Lands of the Lord upon a pain c. And that the said Franklin in the 13th year of the Reign of the Lady the Queen that now is had put his Sheep into the Pasture and Lands of the Lord to feed and for that they avow the taking in the right of the Lord Cromwell for not payment of the said Forfeiture And Jefferies of Council with the Plaintiff said That the Avowry nor the Conusans were not good For the Custom is as they themselves have shewed That the By-Law shall be made when necessity requireth and without necessity a By-Law cannot be And it is not alledged here That there was a necessity at the time of this By-Law made and then if there be no necessity they cannot make the By-Law Also it is not alledged that there were any Sheep there And when a Custom is pleaded it shall be pleaded stricti juris And at the Common Law you may see divers Cases That when a Man is to have one thing for the cause of another that he must alledge the thing for which he must have it As in 9 H. 6. Where an Abbot had granted to one That he should have Common wheresoever the Cattel of the Abbot should go there if the Commoner will justifie or make Avowry for his Common he must aver that the Beasts of the Abbot went then in such a place Field or Pasture for if they did not go there at the time that he justifieth or avoweth his Iustification or Avowry shall not be good And there it was said by Babbington Chief Iustice That if a Man grants Common whensoever his Cattel shall go in such a Pasture If the Grantor doth never put his Cattel into the Pasture the Grantee shall not have Common there and therefore he must say That he put his Beasts into the Pasture And in 15 H. 7. in the Case of an Annuity granted until he be promoted to a Benefice in a Writ of Annuity brought he must say That he is not promoted c. And if an Obligation be made to you to you my Lord for Mony when J.S. shall return from Rome you shall not have an Action upon the Bond for not payment of the Mony without alledging that J.S. is retorned See 33 H. 6. Hillary 's Case And before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum If a Man had made a Feoffment to hold by Fealty and the Guarding of his Castle In an Avowry for the Castle Guard that there was then War and so cause of necessity for in time of Peace he shall not be bound to Guard it And so it appeareth 34 H. 8. Where a Feoffment was made before the Statute to hold by Fealty and every year to marry a poor Maiden within the Mannor if he doth avow for not marriage he ought to alledge that there was a poor Maid that year within the Mannor So if the Tenure be to repair a Bridge that is for the Common wealth and he and all others
King and a Common Person was moved to the Court by Lovelace Serjeant Dyer Iustice I conceive That it is a good Purchase in Law as well in the Case of the King as in the Case of a Common Person And see to that purpose 39 E. 3. and in this Case If the King had granted the Land to John Holt without naming him Son the same had been a good Purchase But if the King had called him John the Son of Thomas without giving him a sirname there such a Purchase should not be good if he were a Bastard because he hath not Nomen Cognitum as where he hath a sirname and a Man cannot purchase by the Name of John only and then if he be called John the Son of Thomas when he is not his Son it cannot be good And such Case hath here lately been adjudged Where the Lord Powis gave certain Lands to Thomas Gray his Son by him begotten upon the Body of Jane Orwell and in truth the said Thomas was a Bastard of the said Lord Powis and the name of Jane was not Orwell but the Daughter of one Punt and the Mother of Jane who was first married to Punt betwixt whom Jane was begotten married with one Orwell and yet notwithstanding that wrong Name and that the said Thomas Gray was not the Son of the Lord Powis born of Jane Orwell but of one Jane Punt yet it was a good Purchase and Gift to Thomas Gray because it was his known Name Manwood As I take it the Letters Patents are Ex certa scientia ex mero motu and then the Kings Grant shall not be taken in such plight as the Grant of a Common Person void for incertainty because that the King takes notice of the Person of what degree he is and in the Kings Case where he takes knowledge by the words Ex certa scientia there all matter of uncertainty shall be avoided and made good but not matter which is not true And for uncertainty he said Where a thing may be taken two ways there without the words Ex certa scientia c. the best shall be taken for the King and strongest against the Patentee But by Dyer by the words Ex certa scientia c. that incertainty is saved and shall be taken strong for the Patentee and if it can any ways be taken for him then the Patent shall not be void and then when in the principal Case there is the word Son and the word Son may be taken two ways either for a base Son or a true Son there by the words Ex certa scientia the King taketh upon him to know in what manner he is Son and a base Son is a Son Quodam modo so as the Letters Patents shall not be false But where the King in his Letters Patents recites a thing which is false that shall not make the Patent good although the words be Ex certa scientia et mero motu LXX Mich. 15. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. NOte It was agreed by the Court That if a Man in a Replevin pleadeth and they are at Issue and the Iury is charged and gone from the Bar and returns to give their verdict and the Plaintiff be non-suit their retorn irreplevisable shall not be awarded as in case if a verdict had been given But the party may have a Writ of second Deliverance as well as if he had been nonsuit before declaration or appearance LXXI Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Husband levied a Fine of his Land and died and his Wife within the 5 years after the death of her Husband brought her Writ of Dower but did not pursue her Writ until 6 years were past and then she would have revived her Suit. And Meade Serjeant demanded the Opinion of the Iustices If the Wife should be barred of her Dower or not And by Manwood Iustice it was moved again If they at the Bar did agree That if a Fine be levied by the Husband and the Wife doth not make her claim within the 5 years if for that she shall be barred And he conceived That she should not be barred For he said That he who hath Title to the Land at the time of the Fine levied if he doth not sue within 5 years after his Title accrued should be barred But where the Title accrues after the Fine there he who hath Title shall not be barred by the 5 years but he may come 30 years after and make his Title and Claim But in the principal case he said That if the Fine had been levied after the death of the Husband there the Wife should be barred if she did not pursue her Right and Claim within 5 years And he agreed That if the 5 years be a Bar here that then by the Wives suffering of her Writ of Dower to be discontinued till after the 5 years were past that she should be barred because vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt Leges Harper said That the Discontinuance should be no Bar unto her For he said That if a gift be made to one in tail the Remainder over and Tenant in tail dieth without Issue and he in the Remainder brings a Formedon in the Remainder within 5 years and discontinueth it yet it is no Bar but that after the 5 years ended he may revive his Suit Which Manwood denyed And then Dyer came into the Court and the Case was moved to him And he said That the not prosecuting of the Action by the Wife should be a Bar unto her and that the Marriage which was before the Fine was the cause of Dower although she could not come to be endowed until after the death of her Husband And he said That the Wife could make no other to have her Dower but only by bringing of her Writ of Dower and therefore if she did surcease her time until the 5 years were past that her new claim by her new Writ would not revive the Ancient Claim and that therefore she should be barred For she could not enter into the Land to defeat the Fine And he said That as to the principal Case That it was adjudged Anno 4 H. 8. And it was also said by the Court That an Assignment of Dower made to the Wife in the Court of Wards was no sufficient claim of the Wife because she cannot have a Writ of Dower there and there by this surceasing of her demand of her Dower for the 5 years at the Common Law that she should be barred LXXII Trin. 15 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was A Man made a Lease for years and the Lessee Covenanted to make Reparations The Lessor granted the Reversion to another and the Lessee for years made his Wife his Executrix and died It was holden in this Case by the Court That the Grantee of the Reversion should not recover damages but from the time of the Grant and not for any time before But yet the
That the Defendant should answer over CXXXVI Hering and Badlock's Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 80. IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for Damage-feasant and shewed That the Lady Jermingham was seised of such a Mannor whereof the place where c. and leased the same to the Defendant for years The Plaintiff said That long time before King Henry 8th was seised of the said Mannor and that the place where c. is parcel of the said Mannor Demised and Demiseable by Copy c. and that the said King by such a one his Steward demised and granted the said parcel to the Ancestor of the Plaintiff whose Heir he is by Copy in Fee c. And upon that there was a Demurrer because by this Bar to the Avowry the Lease set forth in the Avowry is not answered for the Plaintiff in Bar to the Avowry ought to have concluded and so was he seised by the Custom until the Avowant praetextu of the said Term for years entred c. And so it was adjudged CXXXVII Rosse's Case Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Ante 83. IN Trespass brought by Rosse for breaking of his Close and beating of his Servant and carrying away of his Goods Vpon Not guilty pleaded the Iury found this special matter scil That Sir Thomas Bromley Chancellor of England was seised of the Land where c. and leased the same to the Plaintiff and one A. which A. assigned his moyety to Cavendish by whose Commandment the Defendant entred It was moved That that Tenancy in Common betwixt the Plaintiff and him in whose right the Defendant justifies could not be given in Evidence and so it could not be found by Verdict but it ought to have been pleaded at the beginning But the whole Court were clear of another Opinion and that the same might be given in Evidence well enough It was further moved against the Verdict That the same did not extend to all the points in the Declaration but only to the breaking of the Close without enquiry of the battery c. And for that cause it was clearly holden by the Court That the Verdict was void And a Venire facias de novo was awarded CXXXVIII Gurney and Saers Case Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Ejectione firmae was brought by Gurney against Saer who pleaded That Verney was seised and leased the same to Baker for 21 years 8 Eliz. Baker 14 Eliz. assigned his Interest to Rolls who 15 Eliz. leased the same to Topp for 10 years and afterwards Rolls granted the residue of his Term to A. Verney 16 Eliz. leased the same Land to Stephen Gurney for 21 years to begin after the determination surrender or forfeiture of the first Lease rendring Rent with Clause of Re-entry And afterwards Verney granted over the Reversion in Fee to Hampden To which Grant A. and Topp attorned Topp leased to B. at Will A. and Topp surrendred B. held himself in by force of the Tenancy at Will And the said Surrender was made privily and secretly without the notice of the said Stephen Gurney The Rent reserved upon the Lease made to Stephen Gurney is demanded as now begun by the said Surrender Hampden entred as for the Condition broken for the non-payment of the said Rent And the Lease made to the said Stephen Gurney was pleaded Quod praedictus Johannes Verney per Indenturam suam sigillo ipsius Stephani Gurney sigillat demisit c. And that was holden a material Exception For here upon the matter doth not appear any Lease made by Verney For here upon the pleading it appeareth That Verney had accepted a Deed of Gurney purporting a Demise by Verney to Gurney which Gurney had sealed but there did not appear any such Deed sealed by Verney and therefore no Lease ut supra And although a Condition may be pleaded by Indenture sealed with the seal of the other party yet a Conveyance cannot be pleaded by Deed as it is here unless sealed with the seal of the party Agent scil the Feoffor Grantor Lessor And for that cause Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Another Exception was taken because that after the Grant of the Reversion by Verney to Hampden the surrender of A. and Topp is pleaded whereas A. ought not to surrender for his Estate was not a Reversion for years but a Lease in Reversion and a Lease for years to begin at a day to come which could not be surrendred See 4 H. 7. 10. But if A. had granted his Interest by way of Reversion where Attornment had been as one Releaseth to him the Reversion for years it is good contrary to him who hath a Lease in Reversion But as to that it was said by the Court That this surrender by A. was good enough for in as much as the Interest which A. had at the time of the surrender was in Rolls a Reversion after his Grant to Topp and there it remained and continued in its nature as to that point notwithstanding that by the Grant it passed in another manner than as a Reversion Another Exception was taken because that in the pleading of the Surrender it is not alledged That at the time of the Surrender Hampden was seised of the Reversion 7 E. 3. 3. He who claims by Cestuy que use ought to alledge the Seisin and Continuance of Seisin to the said use at the time of the Feoffment or Grant notwithstanding that Seisin was alledged before And 10 H. 7. 28. Hewbade's Avowry he there pleaded That A. was seised of a Mannor and thereof levied a Fine to B. that C. the Tenant upon whom the Avowry was made attorned c. And Exception taken because it is not shewed in the Avowry That B. the Conusee was seised of the Mannor at the time of the Attornment And it was holden a good Exception On the other side it was said and affirmed by the Court That in all Cases where an Inheritance is once alledged in a Man the Law shall presume the Continuance of it there until the contrary be shewed See 1 Eliz. the Case between Wrotesley and Adams Plow Com. 193. And 15 Eliz. between Smith and Stapleton Plow 431. Which Wray and Gawdy Iustices granted Ayliff Iustice to the contrary Another point was moved If upon this secret Surrender notice ought to have been given to Gurney who had an Interest for years to begin upon the said Surrender For some conceived That Gurney without notice given him of the said Surrender should not be prejudiced by the Condition aforesaid And of that Opinion clearly was Wray Chief Iustice Note In this Case That Saer the Defendant presently after the Iudgment entred cast in a Writ of Error into the Court and assigned an Error in fact scil That Gurney the Plaintiff in the first Action within age appeared by Attorny whereas he ought by Gardein or Prochein Amy. And it was the Opinion of the Iustices upon the first Motion
for the variance is in a thing which is matter of surplusage and so much the rather because the said A. had not another House in D. c. CLXXXVI Lucas and Picroft's Case Pasch 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was That an Assise of Novel Disseisin was brought in the County of Northampton of two Acres of Lands 2 Len. 41. and as to one Acre the Tenant pleaded a plea tryable in a Forreign County Vpon which the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and from thence into the forreign County Where by Nisi prius It was found for the Plaintiff and now in the Common Pleas Snag Serjeant prayed Iudgment for the Plaintiff and cited the Book 16 H. 7. 12. Where an Assise is adjourned into the Common Pleas for difficulty of the Verdict they there may give Iudgment But all the Court held the contrary For here is another Acre of which the Title is yet to be tryed before the Iustices of Assise before the tryal of which no Iudgment shall be given for the Acre of which the Title is found And the Assise is properly depending before the Iustices of Assise before whom the Plaintiff may discontinue his Assise And it is not like to the Cases of 6 E. 4. and 8 Ass 15. Where in an Assise a Release was pleaded dated in a forreign County which was denyed Wherefore the Assise was adjourned into the Common Pleas and there found by Enquest not the Deed of the Plaintiff's Now if the Plaintiff will release his Damages he shall have Iudgment of the Freehold presently But in our Case parcel of the Land put in View remains not tryed which the Plaintiff cannot release as he may his Damages 2 Len. 199. and therefore the Court remanded the Verdict to the Iustices of Assise CLXXXVII Hare and Mellers Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Post 163. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Phillip Mellers and declared That the Defendant had exhibited unto the Queen a slanderous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Cosening And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. In this Case it was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any Cause of Action For the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort unto her ad faciendam Querimoniam But if a subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter therein comprehended to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is good cause of Action And that was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter recovered And as to the words themselves It was the Opinion of the Court That they are not actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff hath used perjury forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means not known to the Plaintiff And in such case it is true That the Plaintiff hath recovered by forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he cannot recover for he cannot be sworn in his own Cause It was adjudged against the Plaintiff CLXXXVIII Moore and the Bishop of Norwich's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit by Moor against the Bishop of Norwich c. It was found for the Plaintiff and thereupon issued forth a Writ to the Bishop which was not retorned Vpon which an Alias issued forth Vpon which the Bishop retorned That after Iudgment given in the Quare Impedit the same Incumbent against whom the Action was brought was Presented Instituted and Inducted into the same Church and so the Church is full c. And if that was a good retorn It was oftentimes debated Windham cited the Case L. 5 E. 4. 115 116. A Quare Impedit against Parson Patron and Ordinary and pendant the Writ the Parson resigned and the Ordinary gave notice of it to the Patron and afterwards by Lapse the Ordinary presented the same Incumbent who resigned And afterwards the Plaintiff in the Quare Impedit had Iudgment to recovers And it was holden Because the same Incumbent is now in by a new title scil by Lapse and the same person against whom the recovery was had and that appeared to the Court he should be removed See 9 Eliz. Dyer 260. and 21 Eliz. Dyer 364. And it was said by the Lord Anderson What person soever is presented and admitted after the Action brought unless it be that the title of the Patron be paramount the title of the Plaintiff upon such Recovery he shall be removed And so in the principal case It was adjudged That the Retorn of the Bishop was not good Wherefore he was fined 10 l. and a Sicut alias awarded upon pain of 100 l. CLXXXIX Parret and Doctor Matthews Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. A Praemunire was brought and prosecuted by the Queens Attorny General and Parret 1 Len. 292. against Doctor Matthews Dean of Christ-Church in Oxford and others for that they procured the said Parret to be sued in the City of Oxford before the Commissary there in an Action of Trespass by Libel according to the Ecclesiastical Law In which Suit Parret pleaded his Freehold and so to the Iurisdiction of the Court and yet they proceeded there and Parret was Condemned and Imprisoned And afterward the said Suit depending the Queens Attorny withdrew his Suit for the Queen It was now moved to the Court If notwithstanding that the party Informer might proceed in his suit there See 7 E. 4. 2. the King shall have Praemunire and the party grieved his Action See Br. Praemunire 13. for by Brook None can have Praemunire but the King. Cook There is a President in the Book of Entries 427. In a Praemunire the words are Ad respondendum tam Domino Regi quam R F. and that upon the Statute of 16 R. 2. And see ibid. 429. tam Domino Regi de Contemptu praedict quam dicto A.B. de Damnis But it was holden by the whole Court That if the Queens Attorny will not ulterius prosequi the party grieved cannot maintain that Suit For the principal matter in the Praemunire is the Conviction and the putting of the party out of the Kings protection and the damages are but accessary and then the Principal being Released the damages are gone And it was also holden That the Presidents in the Book of Entries are not to be regarded For there is not any Iudgment upon any of the pleadings there CXC Archeboll and Borrell's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. ARcheboll brought an Action upon the Case against Borrell and declared That the Defendant had procured one L. to bring an Appeal of the death of J.S. against
of the said Lands A. brought an Action of Covenant The Defendant pleaded That before the day of payment the Plaintiff put the said B. out of his Farm It was moved by Godfrey That the same is no plea For this is a Collateral sum and not for Rent issuing out of the Land Also the Defendant is a stranger to the Contract for the Farm. But the Opinion of the whole Court was clear to the contrary For the Defendant hath Covenanted That the Lessee shall pay for the said Farm and Occupation 40 l. so as it is as a Conditional Covenant and here is Quid pro quo and here the Consideration upon which the Covenant is conceived scil the Farm and the Occupation of it is taken away by the Act of the Plaintiff himself and therefore the plea is good and the Action will not lie CCVII. The Archbishop of York and Morton's Case Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Archbishop of York recovered in an Assise of Novel Disseisio against one Morton before the Iustices of Assise 1 Len. 55. upon which Iudgment Morton brought a Writ of Error retornable before the Iustices of the Common Pleas And after many Motions at the Bar it was adjudged That a Writ of Error upon such Iudgment doth not lie in the said Court. Which see 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. See also N. B. 22. e. That upon Erroneous Iudgment given in the King Bench in Ireland Error shall be in the Kings Bench in England 15 E. 3. Error 72. And Fenner who was of Counsel with the Archbishop demanded of the Court How and in what manner the Record shall be sent back to the Iustices of Assise so as the said Archbishop might have Execution To which the Court answered That the surest way is to have a Certiorari out of the Chancery into the Common Pleas directed to the Iudges there and then out of the Chancery by a Mittimus to the Iustices of Assise But Fenner made a doubt to take such Course for such remanding Then Anderson Chief Iustice said Sue Execution out of the said Record for in as much as the Record came before us by Writ of Error it shall also be removed and sent back by Writ And so it was done CCVIII The Queen and Hurleston's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 194. THe Queen brought a Scire facias against Hurleston to Repeal a Patent made to him of the Constableship of Chester and Iudgment was given for the Queen And now Hurleston brought a Writ of Error against the Queen in the Kings Bench. And it was moved by Gawdy Serjeant That the Writ did not lie for the manner for that he ought first to have sued to the Queen by Petition See 22 E. 3. 3. 23 E. 3. Fitz. Error 9. If the King recover by an Erronious Iudgment a Writ of Error cannot be granted upon such a Recovery sine gratia Regis speciali And he said That in Chester they have Courts of Common Pleas Kings Bench Exchequer and Chancery And that if Iudgment Erronious be given in the Chancery at Westminster It cannot be reversed but by Parliament and so it is of an Erronious Iudgment given in the Chancery at Chester Also he said They have a Custom in London That within one month they may reverse their own Iudgment See 23 Eliz. Dyer 376. Erronious Iudgment given in the 5 Ports cannot be reversed in the King Bench but it is reversable in the Court of the Guardian of the 5 Ports Clench Here both the parties claim by the Queen therefore there needeth no Petition for valeat quantum valere poterit it is no prejudice to the Queen Cook There needs no Petition here for the Attorny General hath subscribed our Writ of Error Egerton Sollicitor General It was the Case of Eliz. Mordant who was to reverse a Fine levied during her Nonage and the proceedings were stayed because she had not sued to the Qeen by Petition See the Case of 24 E. 3. 35. the Case of William de Ingularby who sued to reverse a Iudgment given against him in a Writ of Conspiracy in the Eyre of Derby and there it was said by Thorp Iustice That he must first sue to the King by Petition Wray An Outlawry may be reversed by bringing a Writ of Error without suing Petition to the King. CCIX. Beckwith's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 5 Co. 19. ROger Beckwich by Indenture Tripartite between him of the first part William Vavasour Frances Slingsby and Elizabeth Sister of Roger of the second part George Harvey and Frances Wife of the said George the said Frances being another of the Sisters of the said Roger of the third part Covenant with the aforesaid William Vavasour and Frances Vavasour his Daughter and with the aforesaid George and Frances cum quolibet qualibet eorum That the said Roger at the sealing and delivery of the said Indenture was lawfully and solely seised of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in the County of York discharged of all Incumbrances Francis Vavasour took to Wife Frances Slingsby And Note That by the same Indenture Roger Beckwith Conveyed the said Rectory to the said Francis Vavasour Francis Slingsby and Frances his Wife brought an Action of Covenant against the said Roger Beckwith and assigned the Breach in this That the said Roger was not seised of the said Rectory And Note That the Plaintiff declared of an Indenture bearing date at the Castle of York And upon the breach of the Covenant they were at Issue which was found for the Plaintiff and damages assessed and Iudgment given for the Plaintiff And Note That the Venire facias was de Vicineto Castri de York And upon that Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer upon the new Statute and Error was assigned because all the Covenanters ought to have joyned in the Action of Covenant notwithstanding those words cum quolibet cum qualibet which words do not make the Covenant to be several And for that cause the Iudgment was Reversed Another Error was assigned because the Issue is not well and duly tryed For the Issue is upon the seisin of the Rectory of Aldingfleet in which case the Venire facias ought to have been de Vicineto de Aldingfleet And of that Opinion was Manwood and Anderson Iustices CCX Young and Ashburnsham's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action of Debt brought by the Administrators of Young against Ashburnham The Defendant pleaded Nihil debet And the Enquest was taken by default And upon the Evidence given for the Plaintiff the Case appeared to be this That the said Young was an Innholder in a great Town in the County of Sussex where the Sessions used to be holden And that the Defendant was a Gentleman of Quality in the Country there And he in going to the Sessions used to lodge in the house of the said Young and there took his lodging
and his diet for himself his servants and horses Vpon which the Debt in demand grew but the said Young was not at any price in certain with the Defendant nor was there ever any agreement made betwixt them for the same It was said by Anderson Chief Iustice That upon that matter an Action of Debt did not lie And therefore afterwards the Iury gave a Verdict for the Defendant CCXI. Heidon and Ibgrave's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 1 And. 148. A Writ of Right was brought by Heidon against Ibgrave and he demanded the third part of 40 Acres of Land in the County of Hertford and they were at Issue upon the meer Right Vpon which the Grand Assise appeared And first the 4 Knights were specially sworn to say upon their Oath Whether the Tenant hath better right to hold the Land than the Demandant to demand it And afterwards the rest of the Iurors were sworn generally as in other Actions And there was some doubt made Whether the Demandant or the Tenant should first begin to give Evidence And at the last it was Ruled by the Court That the Tenant should begin because he is in the affirmative And it was said by Periam Iustice That so it was late adjudged in the Case betwixt Noell and Watts And upon the Evidence the Case was That King Hen. the 8th by his Letters Patents gave to the Demandant the Mannor of New-Hall and all the Lands in the Tenure and Occupation of John Whitton before demised to Johnson and in the Parish of Watford And the truth was That the said 40 Acres whereof now the third part was in demand were in the Occupation of the said John Whitton but were never demised to Johnson nor in the Parish of Watford And by the clear Opinion of the Court the said 40 Acres did not pass for the circumstances of the Deed are not true scil the Demise to Johnson and the being in the Parish of Watford but both were false But if the said Land had had an especial name in the Letters Patents then it had been well enough notwithstanding the misprision in the rest And by Anderson If upon the particular it had appeared that the Demandant had paid his Mony for the said 40 Acres peradventure they had passed CCXII. The Dean of Gloucester's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Dean and Chapter of Gloucester brough a Writ of Partition against the Bishop of Gloucester upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. of Partition And it was moved That upon the words of the Statute that the Action did not lie in this Case for the Statute doth not extend but to Estates in Ioynt-Tenancy or in Common of Lands whereof such Ioynt-Tenants or Tenants in Common are seised in their own right And also it is further said That every such Ioynt-Tenant or Tenant in Common and their Heirs shall have Aid to deraign the warranty without speaking of the word Successors And by Periam and Windham Iustices The Writ doth not lie But Anderson seemed to be of a contrary Opinion CCXIII. Hare and Meller's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HUgh Hare of the Inner-Temple brought an Action upon the Case against Philip Meller and declared Ante 138. That the said Defendant had exhibited to the Queen a scandalous Bill against the Plaintiff charging the said Hugh to have recovered against the said Defendant 400 l. by Forgery Perjury and Forswearing and Cosenage And also that he had published the matter of the said Bill at Westm c. It was said by the Court That the exhibiting of the Bill to the Queen is not in it self any cause of Action for the Queen is the Head and Fountain of Iustice and therefore it is lawful for all her Subjects to resort to her to make their complaints But if a Subject after the Bill once exhibited will divulge the matter comprised in it to the disgrace and discredit of the person intended the same is a good cause of Action And so was the Case of Sir John Conway who upon such matter did recover And as to the words themselves It seemeth to the Court That they are not Actionable For it is not expresly shewed That the Plaintiff had used Perjury Forgery c. And it may be that the Attorny or Sollicitor in the Cause hath used such indirect means the Plaintiff not knowing it and in such case the Plaintiff hath recovered by Forgery c. and yet without reproach And by perjury he could not recover for he could not be sworn in his own Cause And Stanhops Case was remembred by the Court which was That Edward Stanhop of Grays-Inn brought an Action upon the Case against one who had Reported That the said Edward Stanhop had gained his Living by swearing and forswearing And by the Opinion of the Court The Action did not lie for those words do not set forth any actual forswearing in the person of the Plaintiff but it might be in an Action depending between the Plaintiff and a stranger that another stranger produced as a Witness had made a false Oath without any procurement or practice of the Plaintiff in which Case it might be that the Plaintiff had gained by such swearing CCXIV. Cheverton's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. HEnry Cheverton brought a Quare Impedit and Counted That he was seised of the moyety of the Church of D. that is to say To present qualibet prima vice and that J.S. is seised of the other moyety that is to say To present qualibet secunda vice c. And Exception was taken to the Count Because it was not shewed how the special Interest did begin scil by Prescription Composition or otherwise for it is clearly against common Right and therefore that ought to be shewed See Dyer 13 Eliz. 229. CCXV Edmond's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN an Action upon the Case against Edmonds the Case was That the Defendant being within age requested the Plaintiff to be bounden for him to another for the payment of 30 l. which he was to borrow for his own use to which the Plaintiff agreed and was bounden ut supra Afterwards the Plaintiff was sued for the said Debt and paid it And afterwards when the Defendant came of full age the Plaintiff put him in mind of the matter aforesaid and prayed him that he might not be damnified so to pay 30 l. it being the Defendant's Debt Whereupon the Defendant promised to pay the Debt again to the Plaintiff Vpon which promise the Action was brought And it was holden by the Court That although here was no present consideration upon which the Assumpsit could arise yet the Court was clear That upon the whole matter the Action did lie and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXVI Farrington and Fleetwood.'s Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer BEtween Farrington and Fleetwood the Case was upon the Stat. of 31 H. 8. of Monasteries 2
Land as it might be Leased And so it is where the Sheriff retorns Issues c. for the Corn there growing may be of the value of 40 l. where the Land is but of the value of 10 l. CCXXV. Weshborn and Mordant's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. 2 Len. 103. 1 Cro. 191.199 1 Len. 247. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That whereas he was possessed of a piece of Land containing 2 Acres called Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 20th of May 29 Eliz. usque diem impetrationis istius Brevis c. the Defendant had the said 20th day of May estopped the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so continued estopped until the 14th of February by reason of which his Land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it for the said time It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration it doth not appear that there is any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made title to the Land drowned from the 20th day so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is laid to be done the said 20th day and if so then he cannot complain of any wrong the Nusance being laid to be before any possession of the Plaintiff To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before the possession yet the Continuance of it after is a new wrong for which an Action lieth As 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbot had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is estopped The Successor shall be put to Answer to that Indictment by reason of the Continuance of it See that continuance of a Nusance is Quasi a new Nusance 14 15 Eliz. Dyer 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified until a long time after the 20th of May scil after the Estopping and the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true Afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CCXXVI The Queen and Scot's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Queen brought a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of London and Scot And the Case was 1 Len. 40. A. seised of an Advowson in gross holden of the Queen in Chief aliened the same by Fine without Licence of the King The Church became void The Conusee presented the Queen without Office found brought a Quare Impedit The Question was If the Queen without Office found should present It was agreed by the whole Court That if the alienation had been by Deed only there the Queen without Office should not have the presentment For upon such alienation by matter in fait without Licence no Scire facias shall issue without Office found of the alienation But upon Alienation without Licence by matter of Record a Scire facias lieth before Office. And in the last Case the Queen shall have the Issues from the time of the Scire facias retorned but in the first Case from the time of the Office found See Stam. Prerogat see 8 E 4. 4. It was then moved That if the Queen being entituled to present ut supra pardon the Conusee all alienations without Licence and Intrusions If the Estate of the Incumbent thereby be confirmed But the Court would not argue that Point CCXXVII Sir Thomas Holland and Bonis's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Replevin 1 Len. 183. 2 Len. 12. Owen Rep. 138 139 the Defendant made Conusans as Baily to Tho. Lord Howard and shewed That the Prioress of the late dissolved Priory of Hallywell was seised of the Mannor of Priors in the County of Hertford and granted the same by words of Dedi concessi pro certa pecuniae summa to the Lord Audley Chancellor of England and his Heirs who died thereof seised and that the said Mannor inter alia descended to Mary Daughter and Heir of the said Tho. Lord Audley who died thereof seised by force of which the said Mannor descended to the said Tho. Lord Howard c. And shewed That the Conveyance by the Prioress bore date 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. and then enrolled in the Chancery The Plaintiff in bar of the said Conusans shewed That after the making and inrolling of the said Conveyance the said Prioress Leased the Lands to Sir Hen. Parker for 99 years and conveyed the said Lands to himself and further shewed That the said Conveyance specified in the Conusans fuit primo deliberatum 4. November 31 H. 8. without that that the said Prioress the said 4. Novemb. 29 H. 8. dedit concessit the said Mannor to the said Lord Audley Vpon which it was demurred And it was the clear Opinion of the Court That the Averment de primo deliberatum against a Deed enrolled ought not to be received For by the same reason it might be averred Nunquam deliberatum and so upon the matter Non est factum It was further Objected That a Bargain and Sale by a Corporation is not good For a Corporation cannot be seised to another's use and the nature of such a Conveyance is to take effect by way of use in the bargain and afterwards the Statute draws the possession to the use But the Court utterly rejected the said Exception as dangerous for that such were the Conveyances of the greater part of the possessions of Monasteries And it was in this Case said by Shuttleworth Serjeant That although such a Corporation could not take an Estate to another's use yet they might charge their own possessions with an use to another CCXXVIII The Queen and the Bishop of Gloucester's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. THe Queen recovered in a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Gloucester and one S. in which Quare Impedit the Bishop pleaded as Ordinary scil Quod ipse nihil habet nec habere clamat in Ecclesia praedict neq in Advocatione ejusdem nisi Admissionem Institutionem c. And now the Bishop and S. the Incumbent brought a Writ of Error And If this Writ of Error brought joyntly by the Bishop and the Incumbent was well brought was the Question Some held That the Bishop had not cause to bring Error for that he had disclaimed in the Church and the Patronage of it For if in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant disclaims he shall never have a Writ of Error 16 E. 3. 7. Fitz. Error 78. And Note That in the Writ of Error at the Bar the perclose was Ad grave damnum Episcopi whereas the Bishop could not be grieved by the said Iudgment because he had nothing nor claimed any thing in the Church c. Wray The Writ of Error had been the better if those words ad grave damnum Episcopi had been left out for the Bishop hath lost nothing And it was Objected by some If the Iudgment in this Case be reversed the usual Iudgment cannot be given scil That the Bishop shall be restored to
the Plaintiffs and of the cause of it upon which the Plaintiffs did demur in Law. It was argued by Fleetwood Serjeant for the Bishop but to little purpose therefore I will report but certain passages of his Argument He conceived That that general Pleading of Schismaticus inveteratus was good enough as if the Bishop certifieth Bastardy It is sufficient to say Bastardus sive Spurius without other Circumstances as to say On the body of such a Woman begotten Lollard derivatur à Lollio i. e. Anglice Tares Sampson was Dean of Christ Church in Oxford and was convented before the Ordinary for Schism because he would not use a Surplice and for that he was condemned for a Schismatick and deprived of his Deanery in the time of the Queen that now is Shuttleworth Serjeant for the Plaintiffs That the Bishop in his Plea ought to have shewed specially how and in what point the Presentee of the Plaintiffs was Schismaticus There are divers manners of Schisms 1. In Doctrine 2. In manners and of each kind there are many c. And therefore for doubt of enveigling the Metropolitan who is to try that Issue the Defendant ought to have shewed the Schism in certain in which the Metropolitan was to examine the Clerk readily See 38 E. 3. 2. the Case of the Countess of Arundel where in a Quare Impedit the Ordinary pleaded That the Presentee was Criminosus Perjurus and shewed the Cause in what and when he was Perjured And although this Issue is to be tryed by the Metropolitan yet it ought to be formally pleaded in the Temporal Court and with certainty As where a Divorce is pleaded It is not sufficient to say That a Divorce was had but the party ought to shew for what cause and before what Iudge the Divorce was had which see 18 E. 4. 29. where the Divorce is specially pleaded for cause of Consanguinity for by one Divorce the Issues are bastardized by others not See as to the Pleading of a Divorce 11 H. 7. 9. Profession although it be a Spiritual thing yet the general Pleading of it is not good but he who pleads it ought to shew of what Order and under whose Obedience 40 E. 3. 37. which see the Book of Entries 444. Intravit Religionem viz. in Domo Carmelitarum de London ibi fuit professus sub Obedientia R. Prioris Domus illius So Deprivation shall not be generally pleaded which see Book of Entries 458. Ecclesia vacavit per Privationem c. per J.S. Legum Doctor Delegat c. so of Resignation 7 E. 4. 16. Resignavit in manus I.L. Bishop of London Ordinary of the said place Now It is to see If by this general Demurrer the matter in Fact be confessed scil That the Presentee was Schismaticus inveteratus and as to that the Rule is That all matters in Fait which are well and duly pleaded by a general Demurrer be confessed but that which is not well alledged by no Demurrer shall be holden confessed Which Learning see in the Commentaries in Partridge and Stranges Case And here for as much as Scismaticus is not not well pleaded for the cause aforesaid it shall not be holden confessed Now It is to see If upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. this defect be helped and he conceived it was not for here the defect is in matter and not in form As if in Trespass of his Close breaking the Defendant justifies by a Lease for years and doth not shew the place where the Lease was made and the Plaintiff demurrs generally upon it the said defect is not helped by the said Statute for that it is Matter So in a Formedon in Discender The Defendant pleads a Warranty with Assets without shewing the place where the Assets is and the Demandant demurrs upon it generally the same defect is not helped by the said Statute See a good Case adjudged upon the Statute Mich. 28 29 Eliz. between Henly and Broad Periam and Windham Iustices conceived That the Plea of the Bishop is not good because it is not shewed in what point the Presentee was Schismaticus for by this genral Pleading if it should be allowed the Metropolitan to whom the Tryal of the Cause belongeth shall be driven to peruse all Schisms in the Examination of the Presentee which is a thing infinite and inconvenient Rhodes and the Lord Anderson to the Contrary And Rhodes vouched an Old Book 30 E. 1. out of a written Book of the Lord Catline In a Quare non admisit the Defendant pleaded That the Clerk presented was Schismaticus Adulter and the Court commanded that he hold himself to one of them for which he said Adulter so as the Court did not mislike the Plea for the generality but for the doubleness And by Anderson Our Case is not like the Cases put by Shuttleworth for they concern things tryable by our Law in which Case to have convenient tryal all matters issuable ought to be specially alledged but here the Case is otherwise and no peril of Tryal And by the said Statute of 27 Eliz. we ought to judge according to the right of the Cause and matter in Law. See this Case adjudged upon a Writ of Error brought in the Kings Bench. Hill. 32 Eliz. in Cook 5 Part 57. Specot's Case CCLII Estrigge and Owles's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case by Estrigge against Owles It was holden by the Iustices Ante 73. That forbearance per paululum tempus is a good Consideration Then it was moved That in the Action the Request was not sufficiently laid in respect of the place and time And Cook said That the difference had always been agreed That where the promise is to do a Collateral thing upon Request there in the Declaration the place and the time ought to be certainly set down As it was holden in the Case of Alderman Pulison where he promised to give a Cun of Wine upon request Ante 73. in such case the request is traversable and therefore it ought to be certainly shewed for the request is parcel of the Issue But if such Action be brought and the Plaintiff declares upon an Indebitatus then if the Plaintiff prove the Debt it is not material to prove the promise for every Contract executory implyes a promise and in such case the request is not traversable And the truth of the Case was That one Tickil was endebted to the Plaintiff in 30 l. and died Intestate B. his Wife took Letters of Administration and took to Husband the Defendant And he for the Consideration aforesaid and that the Plaintiff would forbear his Debt for a little time promised to pay it And further declared That he had forborn c. from such a day until such a day but yet the Defendant would not pay it licet saepius requisitus And upon this Declaration the Plaintiff had Iudgment And now a Writ of Error was brought
bring a new Writ But Gawdy said That the Writ brought was good enough CCCXVII Pike and Hassen's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action upon the Statute of 32 H. 8. touching buying of Titles And the Bargain was laid in Norfolk but the Land c. was in Suffolk And the Issue was tryed in Norfolk and the value of the Land also And as to the 5 Acres they found the Defendant guilty and found also the value of them And for the Residue a Special Verdict was given and for the 5 Acres the Plaintiff had Iudgment presently And by the special Verdict it was found That the Defendant had occupied the Residue of the Land for two years before c. as Tenant at sufferance and afterwards sold the Inheritance Wray Chief Iustice Tenant at sufferance is in truth a Tort feasor by which his taking of the profits is not such as is intended by the Statute But yet he afterwards looking into the words of the Verdict which were That the Defendant tenuit the Lands for two years ex permissione of another thereupon it ought to be intended That he was Tenant at will. CCCXVIII Sparry and Warfield's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN False Imprisonment against the Defendant and others they pleaded The Charter of Bridewell and that the Plaintiff was mali nominis famae and that certain Goods were stollen from J.S. and upon search the Plaintiff was found suspitiously c. And that thereupon they put him into Bridewell It was the Opinion of the Iustices That the Plea was not good CCCXIX. Bragg's Case Pasch 32 Eliz. Rot. 318. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action of Trespass by Strait against Bragg Quare Clausum fregit containing one Acre in C. in the County of H. and for the taking of a Horse The Defendant pleaded That long time before the Trespass The Dean and Chapter of Pauls were seised of the Mannor of C. in the said County in Fee in the right of their Church whereof the place where is parcel c. And so seised King E. 4th by his Letters Patents dated Anno 1 of his Reign granted to them all the Fines pro Licentia Concordandi of all their Homagers and Tenants resiants or not resiants within their Fee And shewed That for all that time they have used to have such Fines of their Tenants And shewed further That 29 Eliz. A Fine was levied in the Common Pleas between the Plaintiff and one A. of 11 Acres of Land whereof the place where the Trespass was done was parcel and the Post-Fine assessed to 15 s. And afterwards Scambler the forreign Opposer allowed to them the said 15 s. because the said Land was within their Fee and afterwards in the behalf of the said Dean and Chapter he demanded of the Plaintiff the said 15 s. who refused to pay it for which he by the Commandment and in the right of the Dean and Chapter entred and took the said Horse in the name of a Distress as Bailiff to the said Dean and Chapter for the said 15 s. and afterwards sold it c. upon which the Plaintiff did demur in Law And it was moved That here it is not averred That the Land whereof the Fine was levied was within their Fee but they say That Scambler allowed it because it was within their Fee. And that is not a sufficient averment quod curia concessit And also the opinion of the Court was Ante 56. 2 Len. 179. That the Dean and Chapter cannot distrain for this matter but they ought to sue for the same in the Exchequer as it appeareth 9 H. 6. 27. in the Duchess of Summersets Case Gawdy Iustice The Grant doth not extend to the Post-Fine for the Fine pro licentia Concordandi is the Kings Silver and not the Post-Fine Wray Iustice All passeth by it for it is about one and the same matter And they in Opinion to have given Iudgment for the Plaintiff Quaere of it CCCXX South and Marsh's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer NOte It was holden by the Court That where Marsh was endebted unto South without any Obligation for it but only by a Note in writing signed with the Hand of Marsh scil By me W. Marsh but not sealed that such a debt might be assigned to the Queen although that before the Assignment against a Creditor he might have waged his Law for in as much as by these Notes and Bills the certainty of the debt appeareth and being true debts they may well be assigned See 21 H. 7. 9. An Obligation may be assigned to the Queel without Deed enrolled and where the Obligee is not endebted to the Queen But it cannot be assigned to a subject Noy 52. if not for a debt due by the Assignor to the Assignee for otherwise it is Maintenance And in this Case it was holden That where the King sues for a debt assigned to him the Obligor cannot plead Nihil debet for now by the Assignment it is become matter of Record CCCXXI. Trapp's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. RObert Trapps 1 Eliz. seised of 15 Messuages in Clarkenwell in the Occupation of 15 several persons viz. A.B.C. c. and named them certain demised them to one Cox And afterwards conveyed the Inheritance of them to one Brian Trapps in Fee who afterwards demised to J.S. all those 15 Messuages in Clarken-well which Robert Trapps did demise inter alia to Cox by Indenture dated 1 Eliz. now in the Occupation of A.B.C. c. And one of the Occupiers names was left out in the recital And it was holden by the whole Court That notwithstanding the said Omission the said Messuage did pass for there was sufficient certainty before and the falsity came after the verity CCCXXII Brewin and Mansfield's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared That A. was endebted to him in 10 l. and made the Defendant his Executor and died And that the Defendant in Consideration that the Plaintiff would forbear the Defendant for a certain time promised to pay it at two several days and shewed which in certain And it was found for the Plaintiff It was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That it is not set down in the Declaration by what portions the 10 l. shall be paid Clench Iustice conceived That the Defendant had liberty to pay it in what portions he pleased Gawdy He ought to pay it by equal portions as a Rent reserved payable at two Feasts without saying by what portions it shall be paid And he said That if the plea for the cause aforesaid had been defective yet now after Verdict all is helped for it is but form And afterwards the Opinion of the whole Court was That the matter shewed was not good to stay Iudgment Wherefore the Plaintiff had Iudgment to recover CCCXXIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Case was The Plaintiff in a
68. Who shall have the priviledge of the Exchequer and who not B. 146. Where the priviledge of Attornies of the Courts in Westminster is preferred before a Custom of London B. 156 166 167. How the Warden of the Fleet must be sued in the Common Pleas B. 173. No priviledge by Writ out of the Exchequer for one of the Kings Houshold C. 223. Prohibition For that the party hath remedy by the Common Law A. 10. Prohibition as to part Quatenus non agatur c. A. 20. To the Spiritual Court upon suit there for a Legacy suggesting that the Testator was indebted to the Executor Ibid. Lies not upon surmise that Mony ought to be paid to the Parish Clark in lieu of Tithes A. 94. Lies not where the doubt is only Cui solvendae A. 94 128. C. 203. It seemeth the contrary C. 265 Lies not upon surmise that the Parson hath used to take the Corn growing upon every tenth Land for the Custom is unreasonable A. 99 100. Cont. B. 70. Attachment sur Prohibiton upon the Parsons Libelling de novo for the same cause A. 111. In Attachment sur Prohibition it is Error if the Count vary from the Suggestion A. 128. Upon a Suit in Court Christian for not bringing in an Inventory A. 129. For the Plaintiff in Court Christian to stay the adjudging of Costs there against him A. 130. Where Prohibition lies and upon what composition with the Owner or Rector A. 23 151. B. 29 73. C. 257. If the suggestion be apparently vicious the Court does over-rule it and not put the Defendant to demur A. 181. To stay a Suit for a Legacy given in satisfaction of Dower upon a mutual Agreement A. 235 236. Lies upon suggestion that the Lands are discharged as they were in the hands of a Prior c. A. 240 241 331 332. Consultation quoad part of a Legacy and quod non agatur de validitate facti A. 278. Lies against the Kings Farmor A. 286. Prohibition must be several if the Libels be several Ibid. The suggestion may be given into Court by Attorny Ibid. Lies upon surmise that there not being sufficient Herbage for the Cattle of the Plough the Owners have used to depasture in green Tares Tithe-free B. 27 28. Consultation granted to the Spiritual Court for calling one Witch and Inchantress B. 53. Lies upon surmise that the Owners have used to have the Hay on the Balks for cutting down the Corn B. 70. Lies upon surmise that the Lands where the Cistertians and the Plaintiff is immediate Farmer to the King B. 71. Upon refusal of a Plea in Court Christian B. 101. If the Spiritual Court call in question the right of Presentation Prohibition lies B. 168. If Prohibition lies upon surmise that the Parson who sues for Tithes is deprived B. 212 213. Prohibition granted for that the Spiritual Court refused to take a Plea that the Plaintiff there was not Incumbent C. 265. Proof Where an Act is to be done upon proof generally how it must be done and when A. 256. B. 215. What suggestions must be proved per Stat. 2 H. 6. B. 212 213. C. 257. Property What kind of property the Lessee hath in the Trees A. 49. What bailment shall alter the property of Goods what not B. 30 31. C. 38. If the property of a Deer be lost by his going forth of the Park B. 201. C. 219. What property one hath in a Greyhound Conies c. C. 219. Protection In Debt Quia in obsequio Regis A. 185. Quia profecturus with the Kings Officer into Scotland C. 20. Q. Quando duo Jura concurr in uno aequum est ac si essent in diversis If one Man be Coroner of Middlesex and of the Verge if he may take an Inquisition per Stat. Artic. super cart cap. 3. Where a thing is to be done by a Bishop and a Judge and one is both if c. B. 160. Quare Impedit See Stat. 25 E. 3. 7. Bar by a Bishop for Lapse A. 31. Against whom it must be brought A. 45. Brought by the Queen for that the Patron is Utlawed A. 139 201. If the King shall recover Damages post tempus Semestre per W. 2. cap. 5. A. 149 150. Where the Seisin in Gross Appendency or the Presentation are traversable A. 154. For Executors and the form thereof A. 205. Of what it lies Ibid. What Presentments shall put the King to his Droit de Advowson what not A. 226. C. 17 18. The difference between a Collection and Presentment as to making a Plenarty A. 226. Plenarty no Plea against the King Ibid. What is good cause for the Bishop to refuse a Clerk A. 230. What makes a disturbance in the Bishop A. 230. Tenant for life need not Count of a Presentment in the Tenant in Fee-simple Ibid. The Patron must not of necessity be named in the Writ B. 58. In what case a Jure Patronatus lies B. 168. If the Ordinary be not at leisure to examine the Clerk and the Clerk comes again ten days after and in the interim the Lapse incurs C. 46 47. Whosoever be admitted pendente placito unless by the Title of one paramount the Plaintiffs Title must be removed C. 138 139. If the Plaintiff claim to present by turn if he must shew how the Estate commenced C. 163 164. If the Bishop pleads that he claims nothing but as Ordinary if he must joyn in a Writ of Error C. 176. If the Ordinary refuse a Clerk he must make a certain retorn of the Cause C. 199 200. Quid Iuris clamat See Attornment If the Tenant may appear by Attorny or must do it in person A. 290 291. Attornment thereupon saving his Term for years B. 6. C. 22. What execution is awarded thereupon to force the Defendant to attorn B. 40. C. 241 242. Who are compellable thereby to attorn A. 290 291. B. 40. C. 241 242. For the Grantee of one Coparcener C. 6. Quo Warranto No plea thereto to say that a Stranger hath such Liberties B. 28 212. The King thereby gains nothing but only redresses an Injury C. 72. Of what Liberties it lies C. 184. How to plead non usurpavit Libertates Ibid. R. Ravishment de Gard. BY the Plaintiff as Prochein Amy A. 111. Recital Mis-recital in a Deed that leads the uses of a Fine C. 135 136. In Articles of Agreement that the Lessor was possessed by lawful Title binds to performance A. 122. Want thereof in the Lease of the King A. 12. Stat. 6 H. 8. 15. A. 12 321. C. 5 6 242 243 244 to 250. A void Lease or one expired needs not be recited in the Kings Grant C. 243 244. Recital in Patents ought to be very strict C. 246 247. No recital necessary where the second Patent determines the first C. 247. Recognizance Cannot be taken by any by prescription A. 131. Upon Recognizance by Custom in London Debt lies only in their own Courts A. 130 131. If a Capias
For an amerciament for not appearing at a Leet C. 14. If the Plaintiff be nonsuit the Court may assess Damages without a Writ of Inquiry if the Avowry be for Rent C. 213. Reputation The signification of the word in Grants reputat fore parcel A. 15. Request When needful C. 73. In Assumpsit where it must be special A. 118 123 221 287. B. 22 215. C. 73 200 201. The like in Covenant A. 124 125 169. Promise to pay Mony at a certain day No request necessary A. 221. Is traversable in Covenant where the Covenant is to be performed upon Request B. 5. Want thereof where necessary not aided by Verdict B. 117. If a Joynt Request be good of several distinct Contracts C. 206. Resceit The Wife shall not be received if her right be not bound A. 86. Cont. B. 9. One in remainder received although he might falsifie the recovery A. 86. If Tenant for life do not pray to be received he in remainder may do it A. 262. By Executors where the Term was limited to the Testator for life remainder to his Executors for years B. 6. Stat. W. 2. c. 3. 13 R. 2. of Resceit B. 62. Stat. Glouc. of Resceit of Tenant for years B. 65. C. 169. In what cases the Tenant by Receit shall have day to plead or plead presently C. 168 169. Upon Resceit of one for a moiety the Plaintiff shall not have Judgment for a moiety C. 169. Where a Termor prays to be received if he must aver the Writ to be brought against the Tenant by fraud C. 168 169. Restitution Utlary in Felony against the Testator reversed by Error by the Executor and restitution de bonis A. 326. Upon a Forcible Entry he in Reversion shall be restored and then Lessee may enter A. 327. Goods sold by Fieri facias not to be restored if the Judgment be reversed B. 90. Of Goods stolen upon an Utlary in Appeal of Robbery B. 108. Retorn of Sheriffs Upon a Capias pro fine ret Cepi Corpus and upon the Cap. ad satisf ret non est invent and fined for contradictory A. 51. Upon a Writ of Hab. Corp. amended A. 145. Where an Averment shall be against it and for whom where not A. 183 184. Upon Elegit that there was a former Writ executed in the same case if good B. 12 13. What is a good retorn in a Writ of Replevin or retorno habendo B. 67. Upon a Fieri facias against Executors after Verdict upon plene administr the Sheriff cannot retorn nulla bona B. 67. Cont. C. 2. Cannot retorn tarde as to part B. 175. Retraxit Cannot be before a Declaration so as to make a perpetual Bar C. 19. S. Saver de default SIckness is no cause as the fall of a Flood or Imprisonment are C. 2. Scire Facias For the King against his Tenant in Capite for alienation without Licence A. 8. For the King against the Ter-Tenant of one Attainted A. 21. In London ad discutiendâ—m debitum A. 52. For the King to gain a Presentation for that the Patron is utlawed A. 63. For the Tenant by Elegit who was ousted by the King for a Debt against the Defendant to shew cause why the Plaintiff should not have the Land the King being satisfied A. 272. Upon reversal of a Fine or Recovery no restitution before a Scire facias against the Ter-Tenant A. 290. For the King against a Debtor in what case necessary B. 55 56. In what case it may issue out of another Court than where the Record is B. 67. Bail not chargeable by any Custom without a Scire facias B. 30 87. Payment no good Plea unless pleaded by Record B. 213. If an Execution were continued no Scire facias is necessary B. 77 78 87. C. 259. Sea. The Queens Interest therein extends to the midst thereof betwixt England and Spain C. 71. Seal The Kings Privy Seal and the force thereof A. 9. Second Deliverance After Withernam B. 174. C. 235 236. None after Verdict but after Nonsuit at the Nisi Prius it lies C. 49. Seisin What is a sufficient Seisin of Services A. 266. What Actions an Heir may have upon a Seisin in Law without entry A. 273. Servant What is a discharge of one retained pro consilio c. for life or otherwise A. 209. If an Action lies for retaining the Plaintiffs hired Servant A. 240. Services Vide Mannor Severance Lieth in Partition A. 55. And in a Writ of Error where A. 317. In case in the Kings Bench of an Executor B. 112. Sheriff His power in executing a Grand Cap. in Dower A. 92. May make a special Warrant and take an engagement to secure himself for Escapes A. 132. May execute a Fieri facias after the Defendants death A. 144. Where he justifies by an Execution he must plead that he retorned the Writ Secus of a Bailiff A. 144. Caveat how he discharge a Prisoner in a Court unless the cause be legal A. 145. Examined upon Oath about a retorn of an Extent B. 12 13. Must hold Plea in person upon a Justicies not the Under-Sheriff B. 34. Must execute Process without questioning the legality of them B. 84 85 93. Action against the Under-Sheriff for proceeding in an Hundred Court after an Habeas Corpus C. 99. Slander Did procure suborn and bring in false Witnesses adjudged actionable A. 101. Forsworn in the Court of Request adjudged actionable A. 127 128. Taken a false Oath in a Court Christian adjudged actionable A. 131 132. Thou art not the Queens Friend A. 336. Words spoken of a Peer or Bishop may bear Action though they will not if spoken of a common Subject A. 336. Corrupt Man spoken of a Judge or Attorny Ibid. Bankrupt will not bear Action unless the Plaintiff be a Tradesman Ibid. J. S. executes false Warrants spoken of a Bailiff Ibid. Liveth by Witchcraft and Sorcery B. 30. For calling one Witch B. 53. If it lies for calling one a Forsworn Man if no legal Oath was given B. 98. Of Title lies though the words were not spoken to any who was buying the Land B. 112. I will prove F. to be perjured actionable C. 151. You live by swearing and forswearing not actionable C. 163. Cousened me of 40 s. not actionable C. 171. Of Title what lies C. 177. Thou hast forged my Hand Thou art a Forger Thou didst forge a writing not actionable C. 231. He went about to kill me actionable Ibid. He forged my Lord of L's Hand to a Letter against the Bishop of L. for which he was committed not actionable Ibid. Statute-Staple Merchant c. If the Conusors Body be taken and let at large by the assent of the Conusee the Land is thereby discharged A. 230 231. If the Conusor sow the Land the Conusee shall reap B. 54. If Debt lies thereupon B. 112. The Body of a Lord is liable to Execution B. 173 174. Statutes Magna Charta cap. 35. When Leets are to be holden