Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	administrator_n	executor_n	heir_n	2,970	5	8.7602	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43467	Reports and cases taken in the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years of the late King Charles as they were argued by most of the King's sergeants at the Commonpleas barre / collected and reported, by that eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Hetley Knight, sergeant at law, sometimes of the Honourable Society of Grayes-Inne, and appointed by the king and judges for one of he reporters of the law ; now Englished, and likewise of the cases, both alphabetical.	Hetley, Thomas, Sir.; England and Wales. Court of Common Pleas.	1657 (1657)	Wing H1627; ESTC R10743	229,000	204

and Yelverton And a prohibition was granted Holmes against Chime before PResidents were shewn that such actions were brought scil Hill 3. Car. Elwin against Atkins and Hill 1. Car. Cophin against Cophin both in this Court. And Richardson said although the book makes a doubt of it yet his opinion was that the action would lie For it would be a miserable thing that all things should be shewed precisely And so Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Port against Yates IN a replevin the case was The Defendant was known as Bayliff to Thomas Kett and the land was Copyhold land And 10 Maii. 3 Car. When it was granted by the Lord of the Mannor to the wife of Thomas Kett. The Plaintiff confesses that the Land is Copyhold land but that the Lord granted 1 Iacob to Robert Salter in Fée who had two daughters the wife of the Plaintiff and the wife of Thomas Kett and dyed seised and that the land descended to them upon which they demurred Berkely The first grant shews that the Defendant was in of all and the descent to the wife but for the moyety whereupon the grant of the whole is not traversed nor confessed and avoided And he cited Dyer 171. Pl. 8. to be the same case in effect and so ruled But Hutton Harvey and Crooke held what difference there was betwéen this case and the case in question Hutton the descent here which is pleaded makes the second grant void But by Richardson although that it be avoided Yet it is not confessed And afterwards for that that upon the whole truth of the matter disclosed It appears that a Copartener cannot distrein the lands of another damage feasant and the matter of form in pleading ought not to be regarded by the Iudges upon the Statute of 21 Eliz. cap. 5. Iudgement was given for the Plaintiff Cockett against Delayhay COcket brought an action upon the case in Bristow against Delahay for these words Cockett hath forged a deed and because of that came out of his own Country And the Defendant justifies that he did forge a Déed in Middlesex of lands in Hartfordshire without that that he spoke in Bristowe Richardson said that that plea was naught either with traverse or without the Traverse Whereupon Henden altered his plea scil That he forged a déed of those lands at South Mimms in Middlesex where the lands lie By vertue of which he justified the words at Bristowe Richardson It is a good plea for now the other can plead nothing but de injuria sua propria And then the tryal shall be in Middlesex And by Crooke if there be a Demurrer there shall be a writ of inquiry of damages issue to Bristowe Issue IF the issue be not made up it may be tryed by Proviso But if the Plaintiff neglect that there may be called a non-sute upon the roll for there it shall be discontinued quod nota Page against Tayler PAge brought an Action against Tayler as Receiver c. which was found against him c. And Iudgement was given that he accounted and before the Auditors he pleaded that before the Action brought there was an arbirement that he should pay to the Plaintiff 11 l. in satisfaction of all accounts and demands which he had performed And it was ruled by the whole Court that that was not a good plea in discharge before Auditors but a plea in bar of the account And by Crooke an accord with satisfaction may be pleaded in Bar not in discharge Which the Court seemed to agree And by Crooke If the Defendant had any other matter to shew on the Declaration before Auditors it might be shewn c. Richardson Although that the Arbitrament was made after the action brought it cannot now be pleaded but he ought to have his Andita querela Manninghams case In Manninghams case The doubt was this A condition of an obligation made to Manningham was that he should pay after his death to his Executors after his death 10 l. per annum to the use of the Children of Manningham And Manningham dyed and there was no Executor whether the payment should be to the Administrator and so the obligation forfeited Berkly said that it ought to be payed to the Administrator for an Executor includes an Administrator And this money is as assets if not to satisfie debts yet to perform this case which is illsgal 5 H. 7. 12. 26 H. 8. 7. And also if a man limit a thing to be done to his Executors that may be done to his Administrators So that the nominating of the Executor is not but an expresse intention to whom the money shall be paid viz. to him who presents his person And he compares that to the case of 46. E. 3. 18. A rent upon a condition reserved to the Executors goes to the Administrators 15 E. 4. 14. Dy. 309. Cranmers case Where it seemed that if a lease be made to one for life and after to his Executors for years that the Executors shall not have the term as assets 32. E. 3. A quid juris clamat Fitzharb A Lease for life to his Executors for years in remainder Lessee for life atturns saving the term which proves that the Executor had that as privy not as strangers And he cited Chapmans and Daltons case the principall So that the Infant and the Executors shall have the money in right of the testator and therefore it goes to the Administrator Secondly The Executor extends to an administrator 8. rep 135. there kindes of Executors and an Administrator is an Excecutor datinus 3 H. 6. An action is brought against divers executors by the Statute when some appears upon the distresse it answers that extends to an Administrator although the Statute names only Executors Thirdly It does not appear here that Manningham made not Executors for it may be that he made Executors and that they dyed intestate or before probate And he cited 18. H. 8. And Shelleyes case 1. rep and 33. Eliz. If Executors dye before probate It is in Law a dying intestate Richardson Here is but meer trust and as it hath been said It doth not appear whether he had made Executors or not For if he dye and makes Executors and they dye before probate or refuse he dyes ab intestato but not intestate Nor shall it be questioned if the obligation had been to pay to Manningham only or to him and his Executors But it goes to the administrators But because that he had specially put his Executor Whether he ought to have the forfeiture of the obligation or whether he ought to have the sum to be annually payed to the Administrator Berkley the letters of administration make mention that he dyed ab intestaro Atthow That is matter de hors but by the declaration it is clear that he dyed intestate And the action brought by Administrator who who had not any cause of action Secondly admitt that there was an Executor and the money payed to him that

is not assets For it is not the money of Manningham but taken by him to pay to another And Richardson said If the party had dyed intestate by the Common law the Administrator is Executor and all things that were to be performed by the Executor are to be performed by the Administrator There was an obligation to A. to pay to the Executors of B. It shall be more doubted there whether it shall be payed to the Administrator But the obligation here is to Manningham himself Now his Executors comprehend Administrators And Needhams case is plain in that And the mention was that the money shall be payed to these that succeed him in his personal Estate Now it was not the intent that it should be lost if he dyed without Executors Crook an action of debt being brought against an Executor upon an obligation plene administravit is pleaded Then Administrator being included in the word Executor there is a good cause of Action And the Court seemed to be of the same opinion Sed adjournatur Fowlers Case FOwler libels for tithes and a Prohibition was prayed upon a suggestion that he came to the Church by Symony By the Court a Prohibition ought to be granted upon a surmise only that he came to the Church by Symony Then Henden shewed That it was found by verdict in the Kings Bench That he came in by Symony And upon that verdict there was a decree in the Court of Wards accordingly And then the Court inclined to grant a Prohibition And the Case here was That Fowler being convicted of Symony the King presents Glapthorn who was admitted instituted and inducted And afterwards he takes another benefice above the value of 8 l. by which the other was void Yet by the assent of the Lord Windsor Patron Fowler continued possession And by Richardson He cannot be any way removed untill laps incurre Strange against Atthowe SIr Hamond Strange brought trespass against Christopher Atthowe And the trespass was done 8 years after but with a continuando unto the time limited by the Statute 21 Iac. And by Richardson the action is toll'd by the Statute For the continuation within the time makes the Trespass within the time And it is not like the Case in Dyer 119 pl. 17. In the turning of a Cock It was adjudged a new diversion for it was a new action But here is not a new act done Richardson the Statute of 21 Iac. may be well pleaded in this discharge of that action And you ought to commence for all not done after the time of the limitation within the Statute otherwise the Statute should be overthrowed For by that means the continando may punish a trespass done 20 years past with the alleging of a continuando Hutton Crook of the same opinion Yelverton on the contrary who said that it was not material if the Statute was overthrown But the other Iustices said it was a good Statute Crook Suppose that you cannot prove your continuando for in trespass it is not requisite indéed to prove it For it is only put for increase of damages But Hitcham said Now by the Statute the continuando shall be proved Then by Richardson Hutton and Crook You will make a fraction That the trespass shall be partly upon the Statute and partly upon the Common law It was ruled again according to that before That when a Will was proved in the Prerogative Court The Executor or Administrator may be cited out of ●…e Diocess where he lives to the Prerogative Court Because that the Will cannot be executed a libi than where it was proved And so that is out of the Statute of 23 H. 8. But by Richardson Hutton and Yelverton Where a Will is proved in the Prerogative Court That it shall be proved in the proper Diocess also of the Executor then it may be executed there Richardson said The privilege for them of the upper House continued 30 daies after the Session where the Parliament of the lower House but for 20 daies And that the privilege extended to Person Goods and Lands Nortons Case Mich. 4. Car. Com. Banc. IN Nortons Case before A Consultation was granted because of a Custome alleged and found for the party But by Crook and Yelverton There are divers Presidents where in that Case a Prohibition was granted without alleging a Custome Allen against Westby before IT was ruled That the Defendant shall not have costs against the Informer they being found against the Informer And Brownlow affirmed that the course of the Court is That upon the Statute the Defendant shall never have costs against the Informer Although Binge cited a President to the contrary Termino St. Mich. Anno 4 Car. Reg. Com. Banc. Gosse against Skipton IN the Court of Requests Gosse borrowed mony of the Testator of Skipton and gave a term whereof he was possessed for five years to him for security by Indenture with a Proviso of redemption And shews further in his Bill that there was a verbal Agréement between them That if the mony was not paid at the day the Testator should take the profits growing upon the Land And if the profits amounted to the value of the sum of mony that then he shall have his term a-again And that he reaped the profits accordingly which well satisfied him and yet he continued possession of the term Which afterwards came to Skipton and is now expired And so he prayed that the Defendant might account for the profits And the Defendant moved for a Prohibition Richardson Although the trust is contrary to the Indenture yet such an averment is good notwithstanding the Proviso But for that that the Executor shall account to none but the King and the years are now spent And although he occupied the same yet the profits shall be Assets And if it shal be received in the Court of Equity there shall be a Devastavit against the Executor And by the whole Court a Prohibition was granted Rolls against How A Man arrested upon a Latitat makes an Obligation to the Sheriff with a Condition to appear And the Question was if it be good For he may make his appearance by his Attorny Although Hutton thought it was not good For the Law intends that he is in person when he is in custodia Marescall And Brownlow said it was adjudged accordingly when Mr. Tomkins Bayliff of the liberty of St. Andrew took an Obligation in his own name for a personal appearance upon a Latitat At an other day Atthowe moved that the Bond was void For the Statute is general that he shall take a Bond for his appearance And now the Sheriff here had taken a Bond for his personal appearance And there he might answer to the Action by his Attorney But that he ought alwaies to be in custodia Marescal which is meant in proper person and he ought to put in bayl which is good enough It was ruled that Iudgement should be entred for the Plaintiff if cause

case against Iohn Culpepper and Anne his wife for an Assumpsit made by Anne dum sola fuit And afterwards the Assumpsion is found by verdict And Davenport moved in arrest of Iudgement for that that there was not a sufficient consideration for whereas the wife was Administratrix to Goddard her first husband who was indebted to the Plaintiff for so the Plaintiff declared and that he intended to sue the wife as Administratrix and that the wife requested him that two might surveigh the account between her husband and the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff assented and that two surveighed it accordingly when it appeared that the debt was due and that then the fore-acknowledgement of her husband to be so indebted In consideration of the premises assumed to pay the debt part at Michaelmas and the other part at a convenient time after But there is noe consideration to make her chargeable de bonis propriis as their purpose is to make her by their Declaration against her and not as Administratrix For it is not mentioned that in consideration that she had assetts or that the Plaintiff would forbear to sue her or otherwise c. So that the debt of her husband by the Assumpsit cannot be changed to her own debt And it is not like Banes case Co. Re. 9. 94. For there the Plaintiff was to forbear to sue him and for that assets is not requisite The like is Beeches case 15 Eliz. in that Court reported New Entries fol. 2. Richardson of the same opinion because there is not any consideration nought but the assent of the wise to the accompt which will hardly charge her de bonis propriis See Co. lib. 6 41. Pasch 3. Car. Com Banc. Thomas Ux. against Thomas Newark THomas and his wife brought Trespass against Tho. Newark for beating of the wife and taking of the goods of the husband only ad damnum ipsorum and afterwards the matter was found by verdict and it was moved that the Declaration was nought for the wife cannot joyn for a Trespass done to the husband alone but in a trespass done to the wife alone the husband ought to joyn and for that the Court awarded quod quere●… nil capiat per bill But it was said by Crook and Yelverton if ba●…on and feme bring trespass for the beating the wife the husband may declare for a trespass done to him ad damnum ipsius c. But it was said by Hutton if two joyn in trespass for taking goods whereof they were joyntly possest one of them in an action cannot declare for taking of the goods of him alone Which was agreed by Crook c. Blackhall against Thursby ONe Blackhall petitions in the Court of Requests to compel Thursby Lord of the Mannor to admit him to a Copyhold surrendred to his use which he refused before to doe And also forbad one to whom the Copyhold was demised by Blackhall to pay him any rent Vpon which it was decreed that Thursby should admit him to a Messuage and 17 acres whereas the Copy was of a Messuage and 3 acres and also that Thursby should set forth the bounds of the Copyhold which he had defaced and removed and that he pay the rent Hitcham moved for a prohibition for he said it was more just for a Court of Equity to compel a Lord to admit his Copyholder for before admittance he cannot have an action and he has no remedy at the Common-law And so if a Copyholder removes or defaces the bounds of the Copyhold it is proper for such a Court to design them To which the Court agréed but they would not compell him to admit him to the Messuage and 17 acres where the Copy is but of thrée acres which would be unjust unless that the 3 would comprehend the other 14. But parcel or not parcel of Copyhold belongs to the Common-law to try But the Court denied the prohibition for that cause for the Iustices said that that admittance to 14 acres does not bind the title but it sets at liberty as to that But if they had decreed that he should be admitted and also enjoy it to him and his heirs then the Decree had been unjust and a prohibition for that But for part of the Decree which touch'd the rent It was agreed by the Court if Thursby receive the rents the decree was just that he should pay it but if he did not receive the rents nor take the profits but only forbad the Tenant to pay the rent and he would save him harmless Then if it was decreed that he should pay the rent a prohibition to that part should be granted And Harvey Iustice in that case said That he knew it to be adjudg'd that a surrender with the appurtenances would pass land And of a Messuage and 3 acres would pass more acres if divers Copies successively have been so And upon questioning of Blackhall by the Chief Iustice for saying that after there was a Decree in the Court of Equity an Order of the Common-bench could not supersede the Execution of it And Iustice Yelverton declared That when he was in the circuit at York a poor man who sued before him in forma pauperis was arrested by process from the Council of York And that upon notice of it he commanded a writ of privilege to be made for him but the Officer of the Council would not obey it upon which he claps in a Habeas Corpus returnable at a certain hour and the Officer came without the body and refused to deliver the prisoner and said that he had not power to controll the process of the Council And upon that he set a fine upon him of 40 l. and his Act was approv'd on by the whole Court. For every one that sues before the Assize ought to have free egress and regress and staying while his business was ended And afterwards the Lord President said to Yelverton that he would complain to the King and Privy Council of him for that he had transgressed his authority and power And the Court said that they would justifie it c. Smith against Doctor Clay HEnden moved for Doctor Clay Viccar of Hallifax that a prohibition might be granted to the High Commissioners of York For that that these Articles by one Smith were preferred against him c. First that he read the holy Bible in an irreverent and undecent manner to the scandal of the whole Congregation Secondly that he did not doe his duty in preaching but against his Oath and the Ecclesiastical Canon had neglected for sundry mornings to preach Thirdly that he took the Cups and other Vessels of the Church consecrated to holy use and employed them in his own house and put barm in the Cups that they were so polluted that the communicants of the Parish were loath to drink out of them Fourthly that he did not observe the last fast proclaimed upon the Wednesday but on the Thursday because it was an Holyday

it shall be lawfull to the Lessor to reenter without any demand of the Rent The Rent is in arrear by 40 daies after the Feast of Saint Michael and no demand of the Rent made by the Lessor Whereupon the Lessor entred If that Entry were lawfull was the Question And by Hutton it is not For a demand of the Rent is given by the Common law between Lessor and Lessée And notwithstanding the words without any demand it remains as it was before And is not altered by them But if the Rent had béen reserved payable at another place than upon the Land There the Lessor may enter without any demand But where no place is limitted but upon the Land otherwise it is Richardson to the contrary For when he had covenanted that he might enter without any demand The Lessée had dispensed with the Common law by his own Covenant As the Lessor might by his Covenant when he makes a Lease Sans impeachment dl waste He had dispenced with the Common law which gives the Action of Waste Harvey of the same opinion If a Man leases Lands for years with a Clause That if the Rent be in Arrear by forty daies after the day of payment That the term shall cease If the Rent be in arrear by the said forty daies after the day of payment The Lessor may enter without request Conyers's Case ONe Thompson makes a Lease for forty years to Conyers by Indenture and in the same Indenture covenants and grants to the Lessee That he shall take convenient House-boot Fire-boot and Cart-boot in toto bosco suo vocato S. wood within the Parish of S. And those Woods are not parcel of the Land leased but other Lands Atthow I would fain know your opinion if that Grant of Estovers out of an other place than was the Lease be good Also what Estate the Grantée of House-boot and Fire-boot shall have by that For the words are from time to time and hath limited no time in certain And lastly If the Lessée be excluded to have House-boot and Fire-boot in the Land leased or if he shall have in both places Also if the Executors by that Grant to the Lessee shall have House-boot and Fire boot And it was agreed by Hutton and Harvey That that Grant was good and that the Grantee shall have it during the Term. And that that grant does not restrain him But that he shall have house-boot and fire-boot in the land leased also Atthowe If there be no great Timber upon the land leased and the houses are in decay if the Lessor ought to find and allow to the Lessée sufficient Timber for the making the reparations or if the Lessée at his own costs ought to find the Timber for the reparations of the house Hutton said That the great Timber shall be at the costs of the Lessor if no Timber be upon the land leased nor no default be in the Lessee in suffering the great timber to go to decay or to putrifie And it was agréed if the Lessor cut a tree and carry it out of the Land That the Lessee may have an Action of Trespass And if Stranger cut a tree the lessee shall have an action of Trespass and recover treble dammages As the lessor should recover against him in an action of waste Wakemans Case A Man seised of a Mannor parcell demesn and parcell in service devises by his Testament to his wife during her life all the demesn lands also by the same Testament he devises to her all the services of chief Rents for 15 years And moreover by the same Testament he devises the same Mannor to another after the death of his wife And it was agreed by all the Iustices That the devise shall not take effect for no part of the Mannor as to the stranger untill after the death of the wife And that the heir after the 15 years passed during the life of the wife shall have the services and chief Rents Jenkins against Dawson IN a Formedon the Demandant makes his Conveyance in the Writ by the gift of I. S. who gave it to ● D. er haeredibus de corp suo legitime procreat And shewes in the Writ that he was heir to the Son and heir of I. D. Son and heir of W. D. the Donee And Hitcham demanded Iudgement of the Writ for this Cause And the Court said that the Writ was not good for he ought not to make mention in the Writ of every heir as he does here But he ought to make himself heir to him who dyed last seised of the Estate Tayl as his Father or other Ancestor Also that word procreat ought not to be in the Writ but Exeuntibus But the Court thought that it might be amended And Harvey said If false Latin be in the Writ it shall be amended as if in a Formedon the Writ be Consanguineus where it should have béen Consanguineo Hutton and all the other Iustices said that that might be amended by the Statute Saulkells Case IN an Attaint the grand Iury appeared and the petit Iury and the parties also and one Rudstone Master of the Servant in the Attaint came to the Bar and there spoke in the matter as if he had been of counsell with his Servant Crawley said to him Are you a party to this Suteor for what cause do you speak at the Bar And he answered that he had done this for his Servant And if he had done any thing against the Law he knew not so much before Hutton You may if you did owe any mony to your Servant for his wages give to his Counsel so much as is behind of it and that is not maintenance Or you may go with your Servant to retein Counsel for him So that your Servant pay for his Counsel But that that you have done is apparent maintenance And the Kings Sergeant prayed That he may be awarded to the Fleet and pay a Fine And Hutton upon advise sent him to the Fleet. Wiggons against Darcy DArcy was in Execution upon a Statute Merchant and his Body and Goods were taken And the Conisee agreed that the Conisor should go at large and he went at large Atthowe moved If that were a discharge of the Execution or not And Richardson said it was For his imprisonment is for his Execution And if he release his imprisonment he releases his Execution And so if two men be in Execution for one Debt and the Plaintiff releases to one of them That is a release to both And so if one had two acres in Execution and the Plaintiff release the Execution of one of them It enures to both Harvey on the contrary opinion Yet I will agree That if a man be one time in Execution The Plaintiff shall not another time have an Execution For after a cap. ad satisfac an Elegit does not lye But in the Case where the Conisee does release the imprisonment only and not the Execution for it is

himself from all rights as concerning himself yet the Donor shall by force of this Statute which at the Common law he could not And if the Donor will release all his right in the Land to the Donee after a discontinuance by Feoffment his release though it will extinguish no right to the very Land yet it will extinguish Rents which proves that the Donee by his Feoffment cannot dismiss himself of all his right but that by the Statute of West his alienation is disabled as to that but that the Donor may avow for the Rent But wheresoever Tenant in tayl suffers a Recovery or levies a Fine the Rents together with the entayl ceases And the answer as to that is imperfect to resemble it to the Case of tenant in see simple doth alien and yet the Lord may avow upon him for the Cases have no resemblance for as Littleton well distinguisheth when Tenant in fee hath departed with his whole Estate he is no more Tenant to the Lord to avow upon though the Lord if he Will may avow upon him for the arrerages and if the Lord after future alienation release to him all his rights in the Land the Release is void to release the Rents and Services in all which it differs materially from the other Case and it is an equall proportion of the Law That when the Lord aliens his signory the Tenant is to he acquainted that all Arrearages may be paid that he may have no after-reckonings for after notice and the Arrerages paid the avowrie vanisheth Now for the Heir in tayl claiming from his Ancestor after his Feoffment by descent from him thereby allowing a right to remain in him against his Feoffment The Case is more difficult because during the Feoffor there can be no motion of that right neither by the Feoffor who hath hard himself nor his Issue because his Right is not yet come yet let me put this Case upon the Statute 11 H. 7. upon the opinion of Mountague Chief Iustice If Tenant in tayl Iointress make a Feoffment the person to whom the land doth belong after her death may enter and hold it according to his right Now till such Entry there is a discontinuance but when the Issue enters he is an Heir intayl et quasi eins per discent But now generally when Tenant in tayl hath made a Feoffment and dies the Heir shall bring a Formedon in the Discender and shall count that descendere debet from that Ancestor that made the discontinuance performam doni and therefore the Writ saith discendit jus it is as much devenit jus It is true that regularly a Feoffment bars all former rights and future rights yet respect to be had to Estrangers Albanies Case 2 Rep. Archers Case 1 Rep. 66. 9 H. 7. And therefore in Archers Case Lands were demised to one fore life remainder to his first Heir male Tenant for life made a Feoffment in fee and died his next Heir was barred of his right for ever by the Feoffment A man seised of Land by right of his Wife makes a feoffment in fee and then the Estate is made back to the Wife she is thereby remitted and her Husband shall never be Tenant by the Courtesie and therefore well resolved if Tenant in tayl discontinue and levy fine with Proclamations is no bar to the Estate tayl Now this Case is irregular because it standeth by Act of Parliament which is able to make the same Act good to one purpose or person and void or voidable to another as the Statute of Ecclesiastical persons and binds the party but is void or voidable against the Successors and shall nevertheless when they enter be in by succession And that there is still a right remaining in the Tenant in tayl appears in that he hath still in him a power to bind it more finally and totally by fine and recovery if he pursue them rightly and therefore note Cuppledikes Case If Tenant in tayl with divers remainders over make a Feoffment and Feoffee vouch not the Feoffee Tenant in tayl in possession but the first in Remainder by the Statute the Feoffees are not bound but are remitted and Maunsells Case there is cited where one recovery is a bar to 3 several Intayls with double voucher And this is called jus extinguendi which he could not extinguish and discharge if not in him and in his power and therefore there is no cause to frame Abeyances needless and in vain but the Law allows not nor admits not but in Cases of necessity as in the vacancy of Bishops Parsons and other Ecclesiastical persons or the like Remainders to right Heirs upon Freehold abeyances are not allowed but where the original Estate required them or where the consequences of Estates and Cases do require them As for the first in Case of single Corporations Bishops Deans and Parsons which must dye and a vacancy of freehold or a Remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. yet living Or Secondly in Case of congruity as if a man gives a Warranty and die his Heir in ventre sa mere may not be vouched but if there be Heir he may be vouched and a Vouchee may take and plead a Release quasi tenens or may lease a Fine to the Defendant of the Land in Question But for Estates that of their own nature and origination creation are perfect and intire as this Estate entayl is the Law permits not vain affected abeyance or fictions by the voluntary Act of the party as this to no good which should preserve a right to serve the Heir and to defraud the King which was one of the principal reasons for the making the Statute 27 of H. 8. for the transferring of uses into possession Vses being but a kind of abeyance and shift to kéep the profits to the use and defraud the King and Lords of their Escheats and them that had a right to know against whom to bring their Actions Littleton was confounded in himself when he made an abeyance of totum statum suum and yet made an Estate for life which is condemned in Walsinghams Case by the Iudges Again though fictions take place amongst common person the King is not bound by fictions and therefore the King is not bound by his remainders by recompence feigned upon a common recovery warrant collateral binds not the King but warranty with real and actual Assets nor the King is not bound by Estoppels of his own recitall certa scientia as it is in Altenwoods Case And I hold plainly that as the Land in possession is distinctly and literally given to the King so the right is as literally directly and plainly given to the King by discharge of that ancient right whereof formerly it was bound for when the Statute saith that the King should have the Lands saving the right of all persons other than the Offenders and their Heirs and such as claim to their use it is plain that the eye of the Statute was not