Dorothy Margery survived and is since dead The Question was whether upon this Reservation the Beast of any person being upon the Land may be distreined for an Heriot Mr. Pollexfen argued that it could not because the words in the Reservation ought to be taken very strictly and not to be carryed farther than the plain expression Where words are doubtful they have been always expounded against the Lessor Cro. Eliz. 217. 2 Roll. Abr. 448. Latch 99. as if a Lease be made for years reserving a Rent durante termino to the Lessor his Executors or Assigns the Lessor dies his Heir shall not have the Rent because 't is reserved to the Executors But here is no room for any doubt upon these words for if a Lease for years be made in which there is a Covenant that the Lessee shall pay the Rent without any other words this determines upon the death of the Lessee So where a Lease was made for 99 years if A. B. C. 2 Rol. Abr. 451. Hetley 58. Cro. Car. 314. or any of them should so long live reserving Rent to him and his Executors and also at or upon the death of either his or their best Beast in the name of an Heriot provided that if B. or C. die living A. no Heriot shall be paid after their deaths A. assigns his Term and the Beast of the Assignee was taken for an Heriot but adjudged that it could not for the words his or their shall not be carried farther than to the persons named in the Limitation The Books that affirm that a Man may seize for an Heriot Service cannot be brought as Authorities in this Case because they are all upon Tenures between Lord and Tenant and not upon particular Reservations as this is The old Books say that if a Tenant by Fealty and Heriot-Service Broke tit Heriot 2. made his Executor and died that the Lord might seize the best Beast of his Tenant in the Hands of the Executor and if he could not find any Beast then he might distrain the Executor Plo. Com. 95. and the reason of this seizure was because immediately upon the death of the Tenant a Property was vested in the Lord but it was held always unreasonable to put him to distrain when he might seise And it is now held that for Heriot-Service the Lord may either distrain or seise but then if he makes a seisure Cro. Car. 260. Jones 300. it must be the very Beast of the Tenant but if he distrain he may take any persons Cattle upon the Land So that admitting this to be Law yet it proves nothing to this matter because such Services being by Tenure shall not be extended to those which are created within time of memory upon particular reservations for by those ancient Tenures the Lords had many Priviledges which cannot be upon Reservations Besides the seisures in those Cases were by the Lords who continued so to be at the very time of the seisure but in our Case the Lease is determined by the death of the last Life so the Priviledge is lost and then it must stand upon the particular words in the Deed. Sed adjornatur into the Exchequer Chamber the Iudges being divided in Opinion Vid. 2 Sand. 165. Shipley versus Chappel Pasch 3 Jac. Rot. 404. THE Plaintiff Shipley as Administrator of Hannah his Wife Condition of two parts in the disjunctive and one part becomes impossible to be done yet the other must be performed according to the subsequent matter brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Chappel an Attorny for 140 l. The Defendant craved Dyer of the Condition which was Viz. Whereas Hannah Goddard who was Wife to the Plaintiff and Thomas Chappel of Greys-Inn in the County of Middlesex are Coparceners according to the Common-Law of one House with the Appurtenances in Sheffeild in the possession of William White and whereas the said Hannah Goddard hath paid unto Thomas Chappel the Father for the use of his Son the Sum of 72 l. in consideration that the said Thomas Chappel the Son when he attains the Age of 21 years which will be about Midsomer next do by good Conveyance in the Law at the costs and charges of the said Hannah Goddard convey his said moiety of the said House with the Appurtenances unto her and her Heirs Now the Condition of this Obligation is such That if the said Thomas Chappel the Son shall at the Age of 21 years convey his said moiety of the said House or otherwise if the said Thomas Chappel the Father his Heirs Executors or Administrators shall pay or cause to be paid the sum of 72 l. with lawful Interest for the same unto the said Hannah Goddard her Executors Administrators or Assigns that then this Obligation to be void Then he pleaded that his Son Thomas Chappel was Coparcener with Hannah Goddard as Co-heires of Elizabeth Goddard that Thomas came of Age and that before that time Hannah died without Issue The Plaintiff replied that true it is that before Thomas Chappel the Son came of Age the said Hannah died without Issue of her Body that Elizabeth Goddard before the making of the said Bond died seised in Fee of the said Messuage but that she first married with one Malm Stacy by whom she had Issue Lydia that Malm her Husband died and Elizabeth married John Goddard by whom he had Issue Hannah their only Daughter and Heir that John Goddard died and that Lydia Stacy married the Defendant Thomas Chappel by whom he had Issue Thomas Chappel his Son that Lydia died in the life-time of Elizabeth that Thomas Chappel hath not paid the 72 l. to Hannah in her life time or to John Shipley after her death The Defendant demurred and the Plaintiff joyned in Demurrer The Question was since the word Heirs in the Condition being a word of Limitation and not of any designation of the person whether the death of Hannah Goddard before Chappel the Son came of Age and who was to make the Conveyance shall excuse the Defendant from the payment of the Mony Those who argued for the Defendant 5 Co. 21. b. chiefly relied upon Laughter's Case which was viz. Laughter and Rainsford were bound that if R. after marriage with G. together with the said G. shall sell a Messuage c. if then R. do or shall in his life-time purchase for the said G. and her Heirs and Assigns Lands of as good value as the Mony by him received by the said Sale or leave her as much Mony at his decease then c. G. died R. did not purchase Lands of an equal value with that he sold and upon Demurrer it was held that where a Condition consisteth of two parts in the disjunctive and both possible at the time of the Bond made and afterwards one is become impossible by the act of God there the Obligor is not bound to perform the other part because the Condition is made for
quarter for by such means Diseases may be brought into a Family and a Man hath no security either for his Goods or Mony This was the Opinion of Iustice Twisden in Coutrell's Case Sid. 29. and it seems to be very natural and therefore the chief reason why power was given by the Statute to the Overseers to raise mony was that they might place poor Children to such who were willing to take them for Mony for otherwise they might compel a Man to receive his Enemy into his Service He relied on the Case of the King and Price Hillary 29 and 30th of Car. II. which was an Order of the like nature moved to be quashed And Iustice Twisden said in that Case that all the Iudges of England were of Opinion that the Iustices had not such a Power and therefore that Order was quashed 'T is plain that by the Statute of the 43 Eliz. E contra the Iustices may place out poor Children where they see it convenient and so the constant practice hath been so is the Resolution of the Iudges in Dalton which was brought in by the Lord Chief Iustice Hyde but denied so to be by Iustice Twisden for no other reason but because Iustice Jones did not concur with them In Price 's Case this matter was stirred again but there hath been nothing done pursuant to that Opinion Since then the Iustices have a power to place out poor Children 'T is no Objection to say that there may be an inconvenience in the exercise of that power by placing out Children to improper persons for if such things are done the Party hath a proper remedy by way of Appeal to the Sessions Three Iustices were of Opinion that the Iustices of Peace had such a Power and therefore they were for confirming the Order and Iustice Dolbin said it was so resolved in the Case of the King and Gilliflower in the Reign of King James the first Foster being then Chief Iustice tho' the Iudges in Price 's Case were of another Opinion The Chief Iustice was now likewise of a different Opinion for the Statute means something when it says that a Stock shall be raised by the Taxation of every Inhabitant c. for putting out of Children Apprentice There are no compulsory words in the Statute for that purpose nor any which oblige a Master to take an Apprentice and if not the Iustices have not power to compel a Man to take a poor Boy for possibly such may be a Thief or Spy in the Family But this Order was quashed for an apparent fault which was that the Statute has entrusted the Churchwardens and Overseers of the Poor by and with the Approbation of two Iustices to bind Apprentices c. And the Churchwardens are not mentioned in this Order DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 1 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1689. Thirsby versus Helbot DEBT upon a Bond for performance of an Award Award void where a person who is a Stranger to the Submission is ordered to be a Surety Vpon Nullum Arbitrium pleaded the Plaintiff replyed and shewed an Award made which amongst other things was that the Defendant should be bound with Sureties such as the Plaintiff should approve in the Sum of 150 l. to be paid to him at such a time and that they should seal mutual Releases and assigned a Breach in not giving of this Bond. There was a Verdict for the Plaintiff and now Serjeant Pemberton moved in arrest of Iudgment that this was a void Award because 't is that the Defendant shall be bound with Sureties c. and then Releases to be given now the Sureties are Strangers to the Submission and therefore the Defendant is not bound to procure them He relied upon the Case of Barns and Fairchild 1 Roll. Abr. 259. which was an Award that all Controversies c. should cease and that one of the Parties should pay to the other 8 l. and that thereupon he should procure his Wife and Son to make such an Assurance c. this was held to be void because it was to bind such persons who were not Parties to the Submission Tremain Serjeant contra E contra That Cause doth not come up to this at the Barr because by this Award the Party was to sign a general Release whether the Defendant paid the Mony or not But the Court was of Opinion that the Award was void because it appointed the Party to enter into a Bond with such Sureties as the Plaintiff shall like and Releases then to be mutually given Now if the Plaintiff doth not like the Security given then he is not to seal a Release and so 't is but an Award of one side Savier versus Lenthal ASsisa ven ' recogn ' si Willielmus Lenthal Armiger Henricus Glover Armiger Johannes Philpot Generosus Thomas Cook Generosus Samuel Ellis Generosus injuste c. Assize disseisiverunt Thomam Savier de libero tenemento suo in Westm infra triginta annos c. Et unde idem Thomas Savier per Jacobum Holton Attornatum suum queritur quod disseisiverunt eum de officio Marr ' Maresc ' Domini Regis Dominae Reginae coram ipso Rege Regina cum pertin ' c. The Cryer made Proclamation and then called the Recognitors between Thomas Savier Demandant and William Lenthal Tenant who were all at the Bar and severally answered as they were called Then Mr. Goodwin of Greys-Inn arraigned the Assize in French but the Count being not in Parchment upon Record the Recognitors were for this time discharged and ordered to appear again the next day But the Council for the Tenant relied on the authority in Calvert's Case that the Title ought to be set forth in the Count Plo. Com. 403. 4 E. 4.6 which was not done now and therefore the Demandant ought to be nonsuited But the Writ being returnable that day was ex gratia Curiae adjourned to the Morrow afterward and if the Demandant did not then make a Title he must be nonsuited The next day the Iury appeared Then the Cryer called Thomas Savier the Demandant and then the Tenants and afterwards the Recognitors and the Assize being arraigned again the Demandant set forth his Title Then Sir Francis Winnington of Council for Mr. Lenthal one of the Tenants appeared after this manner Vouz avez icy le dit Williem Lenthal jeo prye oyer del Brief del Count. Then the other Tenants were called again three times and they not appearing Process was prayed against them Doe versus Dawson BAil was put in to an Action brought by the Plaintiff Bail liable if the Principal had two Terms after an Injunction dissolved and before he declared the Defendant obtained an Injunction to stay Proceedings at Law which was not dissolved for several Terms afterwards Then the Injunction was dissolved and the Plaintiff delivered his Declaration and had Iudgment by default
an Inn-Keeper and that he bought Necessaries and uttered them in his House but this will not make him a Baukrupt Because Inns are of necessity and under the inspection of the publick and he cannot refuse to lodge travelling persons 2 Roll. Rep. 345. Hutt 100. 2 Roll. Abr. 64. Dalton 28. and 't is chiefly upon this account that he hath several Priviledges which other Traders have not as to detein a Horse till he is paid for keeping of it c. They are under the power of the Iustices of the Peace in the places where they are scituated for if an Inn be erected in an inconvenient place 't is a Nusance and may be suppressed by Indictment 't is the same with an Ale-house 1 Jac. c. 9. 21 Sac. c. 7. 1 Car. c. 14. and therefore several Statutes which are made to prevent Tipling and which appoint at what price Ale shall be sold have been adjudged to extend to Inn-Keepers Where a Man Buys and Sells under a Restraint and particular Limitation tho 't is for his Livelyhood yet he is not within the Statutes Inn-Keepers do not deal upon Contracts as other Traders do for a Iudge of Assize may set a price upon his Goods and if they should set a price themselves if 't is unreasonable they may be indicted for extortion what they buy is to a particular intent for 't is to spend in their Houses and tho' they get their Living by it 't is not ad plurimum for the greatest part of their Gains ariseth by Lodgings Attendance dressing of Meats and other Necessaries for their Guests Ever since the Statute of the 13th of Eliz. all the subsequent Acts relating to Bankrupts have been penn'd alike except the 21st of Jac. I. which is a little larger and takes in a Scrivener and it may still be worth the care of a Parliament to enlarge it to an Inn-Keeper but no Law now in being extends to him He is not taken notice of as a Trader within any of the Statutes of Bankrupcy he is only communis hospitator a person or Trador who buys and sells for hospitality 8 Co. Caly's Case by receiving Travellers he becomes chargable to the Publick to protect them and their Goods A Shoe-maker 1 Cro. 31. Hutt 46 47. Tanner and Baker are Trades within the Statutes but the difference between those Trades and an Inn-Keeper is plain because they use the Manufacture and thereby encrease the value as Leather is made more useful and of more value by making of it into Shoes A Farmer is not within the Statute and yet they all buy and sell for 't is necessary to their Occupation This Point was setled in Crisp and Prat 's Case but the occasion of the doubt afterwards was by the publishing of Iustice Jones 's Reports who doubted upon the particular finding of the Iury and so the Court came to be divided There is no material difference between an Inn-Keeper and the Master of a Boarding-School who buys and dresses Provisions for young Scholars and obtains Credit by his way of Living but it was never yet thought that he was within any of those Statutes Rowsby versus Manning Mich. 4 Jac. Rot. 15. DEBt upon a Bond for performance of an Award Conditional submission to an Award so as it be made by such a day and ready to be delivered to the Parties or to such of them as desire it The Defendant pleaded nullum fecerunt arbitrium c. The Plaintiff replied that after the submission and before the day appointed in the Condition the Arbitrators did make their Award by which they ordered the Defendant to pay so much Mony to the Plaintiff and so assigned the breach for non-payment c. And upon a Demurrer to this Replication Serjeant Tremaine said it was a conditional submission viz. to perform an Award so as it be made by such a day and ready to be delivered to the Parties and the Plaintiff hath not shewed that it was ready to be delivered to the Defendant which he ought to have averred If the Condition be to perform an Award between the Parties 5 Co. 103. More 642. Ita quod arbitrium praed fiat deliberetur utrique partium praed before such a day it must be delivered to all the Parties and not to one for each of them are in the danger and penalty of the Bond. E contra E contra Serjeant Thompson agreed it to be a conditional Submmission but not such as goeth to the substance of the Award it self for the conditional Words are not to the Award but to the Form of the delivering of it and therefore it should come on the Defendants side to shew that it was not ready to be delivered Curia If an Award is actually made 'tis then ready to be delivered but in this Case it must be ready to be delivered to the Parties or to such of them who desire it so it must be desired and if then denied the Party may plead the matter specially The Summission was viz. 2 Cro. 577. 2 Roll. Rep. 193. so that the Award be made ad vel antea 5 Decemb. ready to be delivered at a certain Shop in London The Plaintiff shewed an Award made at York ready to be delivered at the Shop in London this was adjudged to be a void publication and delivery because a place was appointed where it should be delivered and published viz. at the Shop in London where the Parties were to expect it and not elsewhere So it would have been if a day had been appointed on which it ought to be delivered and the day had been mistaken 2 Sand. 73. But here is neither day or place appointed for the delivery so that the Defendant ought to have desired the Award and if it had not been ready to be delivered he ought to have pleaded the Matter specially DE Term. Sancti Hill Anno 2 Gulielmi Mariae Regis Reginae in Banco Regis 1690. Mr. Leigh's Case HE brought a Mandamus to be restored to the Office of a Proctor of Doctors Commons Mandamus will not lie for the Office of a Proctor of Doctors Commons The Return was that the Court was the supreme Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury who had the Government thereof that he appointed a Iudge of the said Court who had power to alter and displace Officers that the Defendant was admitted and sworn a Proctor of the Court and took an Oath to obey the Orders thereof that part of the said Oath was That no Proctor should do any thing in that Court without the Advice of an Advocate that he had done Business without such advice in a certain Cause there depending and that he refused to pay a Tax of 10 s. imposed upon him by Order of the Court towards the Charges of the House The Questions upon this Return were viz. 1. Whether a Mandamus will lie to restore a person to the Office of a
Proctor 2. Whether a sufficient cause was returned to displace Mr. Leigh As to the first It was held that a Mandamus doth lie because 't is a publick Office and concerns the Administration of Iustice and the Proctors being limited to a certain number viz. 28. if many of them should be displaced it would be a means to hinder Iustice This Court doth judicially take notice of the Ecclesiastical Courts by prohibiting them by taking notice of their Excommutions or of any proceedings when they are against the Law of the Land A Proctor doth the Business in that Court as as Attorney in B. R. and Notice is taken of his place as judicially as of any other Officer Sid. 94 152. and as to this purpose those Officers cannot be distinguished if therefore a Mandamus hath been granted to restore an Attorny why not a Proctor The Plaintiff hath no remedy but by a Mandamus because an Assize will not lie of this Office 't is admitted that an Action on the Case may be brought but then Damages only are to be recovered and not the Office and it would be very inconvenient to leave it to a Iury to give such Damages as the Party may sustain for the loss of his Livelyhood 'T is no Objection to say that there is a proper Visitor in this Case to whom to appeal viz. to the Archbishop for they have not set out any such visitatorial power in the Return or if any that he had power to restore him But if such Power had appeared upon the Return yet a Proctor ought not to appeal to the Archbishop or to the Guardian of the Spiritualties Sede vacante because ' is in effect to appeal to themselves for the Dean of the Arches before whom the Appeal must be brought is an Officer appointed by the Archbishop himself and hath the same Iurisdiction with him Besides the Proctors there are not properly under any Visitatorial Power they have a particular Iurisdiction within themselves and their Courts have been held in several places as at Bow Christchurch c. Then as to the Causes of this removal 't is returned 1. For receiving and prosecuting of a Cause without the advice of an Advocate contrary to a Statute made by the Archbishop Abbot 2. For refusing to pay 10 s. set upon him as a Tax towards the Charges of the House Now neither of these are sufficient Causes to displace him As to the first Cause if that Statute gives them any such Power 't is void because it deprives a Man of his Freehold which cannot be done but by the Law of the Land 'T is not said when this Offence was committed for it may be before a general Pardon and then 't is discharged But if it is an Offence that will not make a Forfeiture without warning and no such thing appears upon the Return 11 Co. 99. a. for if he had notice publickly he might have offered something in excuse of himself as Sickness c. which might have been allowed by the Court. 'T is as unreasonable a Law to put the Clients to unnecessary Charges to advise with an Advocate upon an ordinary Libel as it would be for an Attorny of the King's Bench to advise with Council to draw a Declaration on a Bond. 2. They do not shew by what Authority they may levy a Tax neither do they set forth what Tax was made in the whole so that it might appear that 10 s. was a proportionable part for him to pay neither doth it appear when this Tax was made or that Mr. Leigh was a Proctor when it was made E contra E contra This is not an Offence in matter of Iudgment but 't is a Misdemeanour and punishable 'T is very like the Case of Fellows of Colleges who have proper Visitors and therefore the King's Bench will not grant a Mandamus in such Cases A Proctor is an Officer of a Court different from the Courts of Law and therefore the King's Bench cannot take notice of his Office judicially they have no other way of punishing of a Proctor but by displacing of him and if this should be remedied by a Mandamus then those persons may offend without punishment 'T is not like the Case of an Attorny for he being an Officer of the King's Bench the Court doth judicially take notice of him but not of a Proctor 'T is more like the Case of a Steward of a Court Baron which is of private Iurisdiction and for which a Mandamus hath been denied 'T is like Midleton 's Case who was Treasurer of the New River Water 't is true a Mandamus was granted to restore him to that Office but it was only de bene esse to bring the Matter before the Court though that was a Corporation settled by Act of Parliament 'T is also like the Cases of Abbots Priors and Monks for whom a Mandamus was never granted because they are Ecclesiastical Corporations and have proper Visitors which is now by Law devolved upon the Archbishop So also Lay Corporations have Visitors which are their Founders and their Heirs 'T is an Objection of no force to say that this Appeal must be to the Dean of the Arches which is to appeal to the same person because though 't is true that the Dean is constituted by the Archbishop yet when once he is invested with that Office he is in for his Life and the Archbishop cannot afterwards come into that Court and execute the Office of Dean himself so he is not the same person neither hath he the same Iurisdiction Curia A Proctor is not an Officer properly speaking 't is only an Employment in that Court which acts by different Laws and Rules from the King's Bench they have an original Iurisdiction over this matter and a Mandamus is in the nature of an Appeal which will not be granted where they have such a Iurisdiction but when they exceed it and encroach upon the Common Law then Prohibitions are granted 'T is for this reason that in cases of Divorce which are of a higher nature than this case is no Appeal can be to the King's Bench for it would be an endless business for persons to Appeal ab uno ad aliud examen and therefore credit must be given to the determinations of those Courts who have such Original Iurisdiction Officers are incident to all Courts 1 Roll. Abr. 526. and must partake of the nature of those several and respective Courts in which they attend and the Iudges or those who have the supream Authority in such Courts are the proper persons to censure the Behaviour of their own Officers and if they should be mistaken the King's Bench cannot relieve for in all cases where such Iudges keep within their Bounds no other Court can correct their Errors in Proceedings Now for a Church-Warden of a Parish Clerk an Attorny or the like all these are Temporal Officers and are to be ordered by the Temporal Laws
before a Coroner the person having drowned himself it was suffocat ' emergit fuit if it had stood singly upon the word emergit it had been insensible but the word suffocat ' expressing the sense it was held good 100 4. Where nothing is vested in the King before Office found ibid. 5. It must always be found that there is an Estate in the person offending and a cause of Forfeiture of that Estate to vest it in the King 336 Interest in a thing See Pardon 4. Where a Man may have an interest in a Chattel without a Property 61 2. Devise to a Wife and Children after Debts and Legacies paid an interest vests in the Devisees but 't is otherwise in case of Administration for there no Interest vests till actual distribution 65 3. A Man may have a Property tho' not in himself as in the Case of Joyntenancy 97 Intestate See Administration Innuendo The proper office of it is to make the subject matter certain 53 2. It will not help insensible words 54 Joyntenancy and Tenancy in Common See Abatement 3. Baron and Feme 12. Interest 3. If one Joyntenant bring an Action against the other unless he pleads the Jointenancy in abatement the Plaintiff will recover 97 2. If two Coparceners lease a House and the Rent is arrear and one brings an Action and recovers Judgment shall be arrested because both ought to joyn 109 3. Tenants in Common must join in the personalty but 't is otherwise in real Actions for though their Estates are several yet the Damages to be recovered survive to all 109 251 4. Where one Commoner may bring an Action against his Fellow 251 Joint Action See Action for a wrong 6. Ioyntenancy 2 3. Where an Action may be joint or several at the Election of the Plaintiff 86 2. Where 't is brought against three Defendants who plead jointly the Jury may sever the Damages and the Plaintiff may take Execution de melioribus damnis as well as where their Pleas are several and Tryals at several times 101 102 3. Judgment against two and one brought a Writ of Error and assigned the Infancy of the other for Error the Writ was abated because both did not joyn 134 4. The Defendants in the original Action must joyn in a Writ of Error but it seems otherwise where the Plaintiffs bring Error 135 5. Two covenant to sell Lands and the Purchasor agreed to pay the Mony to one of them he alone ought to bring the Action 263 6 Where there are several Proprietors of a Vessel for carriage of Goods which are damaged by carrying the Action must be brought against all or against the Master alone 321 322 7 Where two Tenants in Common were sued for not setting out of Tythes the Action ought to be brought not against him who set them out but against the other who carried them away 322 8. Two are bound joyntly one is sued he may plead in Abatement that he was bound with another but cannot plead Non est factum 323 9 In all Cases which are grounded upon Contracts the Parties who are Privies must be joyned in the Action ibid. 10 Action must be brought against all where a promise is created by Law 324 Issue Must be joyned upon an affirmative and a negative by concluding to the Country 80 Iudges The making altering and displacing of several Judges Serjeants at Law and King's Council 71 99 100 104 125 143 191 239 Iustices of Peace Offences against the Statute of 23 Eliz c. 1. for not coming to Church may be enquired of by them in their Sessions 79 2. Where a Statute appoints a thing finally to be done by them yet the Court of King's Bench may take Cognizance of it 95 3. Conviction for keeping of a Gun before a Justice of Peace the time when he had not 100 l. per Annum must be precisely alledged 280 Iustification See Pleading 4 5. Where 't is pleaded by way of Excuse to an Action of Trespass for the taking of any thing the Defendant must averr the Fact to be done and set forth the Warrant to him directed and the taking virtute Warranti and not generally that he took it by a Mandate c. 138 2. In Replevin where the Defendant made Conusance in right of the Lord he may Justifie the taking generally ibid. Iudgment 1. At the Common Law no Execution could be of a Judgment after a year and a day but the remedy was to bring an Action of Debt upon Judgment 187 189 2. Now a Scire Fac. is given upon a Judgment after the year by the Statue of W. 2. 189 3. When a Judgment is once execucuted the Goods are in custodia legis and shall not be taken away by an Exchequer Process or by the Commissioners of Bankrupts 236 L. Lapse See Notice Lease A Covenant in a Lease for years that the Lessee should pay the Rent without obliging his Executors or Administrators 't is determined by his Death 231 2. For 99 yeas if three persons or any of them so long live reserving a Rent and an Herriot upon the death of either the Beast of the Assignee shall not be taken for a Herriot for the Lessee is to pay his best Beast and that shall not be carried further than to the person named 231 Libel Where a Fine and Corporal punishment was imposed upon the Offender after Conviction 68 Limitation An Estate was setled upon Trustees to the use of A. and her Heirs provided she marry with the consent of Trustees remainder over to B. This is a Limitation and not a Condition 32 Limitation of Action See 21 Jac. 16. Where a Trespass is laid with a continuando for more than six years and the Statute pleaded and entire Damages it must be intended only for that which falls within the six years and that the Jury rejected the beginning of the Trespass 111 2. This Statute relates to a distinct and not to a continued Account 112 3. It provides a Remedy when the Plaintiff is beyond Sea at the time when his Right accrews and saves it till he returns whether it may be extended in a Case where the Defendant is beyond Sea longer than six years from the time the Plaintiff was entituled to the Action 311 312 Local Actions Whether Covenant will lie by an Assignee of a Reversion against an Assignee of a Lessee in any other place than where the Land lieth 337 2. Debitum contractus sunt nullius loci ibid. 3. Debt for Rent upon a Lease for years brought upon the Contract and Covenant between the same Parties are transitory ibid. 4. If Privity of Contract is gone by making an Assignment and only a privity in Law remains the Action must be brought in the County where the Land lieth ibid. M. Mayor See Corporation Marriage See Condition 3. Evidence 7. Limitation Notice A Maid above 12 and under 16 taken from Parents or Guardian and Married forfeits her Estate to the next in