years is out of the Book for by the Statute of 21 H. 8. cap. 15. he may falsifie the Recovery but no Receipt lieth in the case of a common Recovery for that he who recovers cannot put out the Termor As to that which my Brother Clark hath said That the bargain and sale in this case is not any forfeiture but when the bargain and sale is enrolled then it is a forfeiture I am not of such Opinion for although that the Enrolment be of Record yet the Deed is not of Record for against a Deed enrolled a man may plead Infancy although none can plead Non est factum Also he held That although by the bargain and sale and the Enrolment of it the Bargainee had not a fee for by such act the Reversion is not removed yet by the Recovery and the Execution of it the Bargainee hath gained a fee out of the Lessor for the Recovery is to the use of the Bargainee against whom it was had It hath been objected that here is onely a Voucher which paradventure was lawfull in this case by reason of a warranty paramount or of a Release or Confirmation with warranty and two Cases have been vouched to that purpose viz. 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life being impleaded in a Praecipe voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher which is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but a Writ of Right so if the Vouchee had entred into the warranty and lost c. As to that book we ought not to conceive That every Case reported in our books is Law but let us observe of what authority that case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves the case but no Iudge or Serjeant is named in the case c. The other case is 5 E. 4. 2. b. Note by Heydon clearly If my Tenant for life voucheth a stranger who entreth into the warranty generally and doth not know how to bar the Demandant the Tenant shall recover in value and the Reversion of that which he hath in value shall be in me in lieu of my former Reversion as a Release to the Tenant for term of life shall enure to him in the Reversion But that is but the Opinion of one Serjeant c. But I answer to these books If the demandant in such recovery hath a good Title so as the Tenant or the Vouchee as Heydon saith do not know how to bar the Demandant there such Voucher of a stranger is no forfeiture nor such Recovery suffered upon it for against his Will volens nolens he suffered it but if the Tenant hath good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher nor any warranty as the matter is in the case of a common Recovery there the Voucher of a stranger or suffering of a Recovery is a forfeiture of his Estate And here in our case if the Demandant hath not any Title the Tenant or Vouchee hath not any warranty but the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he would And he said That the Voucher onely doth not make the forfeiture but rather the recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution is had then the Fee is plucked out of the Reversioner vide 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee the same is a forfeiture but here Sir William Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à fortiori it shall be a forfeiture But let us see a little what meddlings or attempts by the particular Tenants are causes of forfeiture and what not 5 Assis 3. A. brought a Writ of Entry against Tenant for life by Collusion to oust B. of his Reversion supposing that the Tenant for life held of his Lease the Tenant confessed the Action upon which Iudgment is given B. enters and his Entry adjudged lawfull for this Recovery is adjudged in Law but an alienation to the disinheritance of him in the Reversion and there it appeareth that such Recovery by Covin is but an alienation and without any strength of a Recovery And he cited many other cases cited before by Altham 14 E. 3. Recept 135. where Tenant for life pleads in chief and prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and would not the same is a forfeiture Also 2 E. 3. 2. and 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat attorned to the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him that had not any thing in the Land the same was a forfeiture and yet the Attornment doth not devest the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3. 7. and 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the Remainder over to a stranger in fee the Donee took a Wife and died without issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife she is Tenant in Dower of the assignment of a stranger and pleads to the Title the Demandant recovereth she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded as she ought being a particular Tenant c. H. 4. Tenant for life loseth his Land in a Recovery against him against his Will and thereupon brings Quod ei deforceat and declares upon an Estate-tail and recovers the same is a forfeiture because he hath challenged a higher Estate than he had 5 H. 5. Tenant for life joyns the Mise upon the meer right 2 H. 6. Lessee for years being ousted brings an Assise and recovers 1 H. 7. Accepts a Fine of a stranger upon condition come ceo c. all these are forfeitures In the principal Case here the Tenant who suffers his Recovery doth not plead at all to defend the Right but whereas he might have barred the Demandant he giveth strength to his pretended Title and makes it a perfect Title and by suffering this Recovery and Iudgment to pass upon it he hath taken the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore he shall forfeit his Estate And without any doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title but the Recoverors in such cases are but as Assignees or Purchasors which appears by the Statute of 7 H. 8. ca. 2. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverors c. As to the inventing of Recoveries it was a necessary device for it was to take away Estate-tails which were the causes of great mischiefs and inconveniencies in this Realm and there was great reason for it for Tenant in tail might by the common Law alien his Lands post prolem suscitatam and now he hath an Inheritance and may do Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of West 2. that all the Realm and the Subjects in it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Fermors Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances were defeated by the deaths of Tenants in tail which
Statute and the penalties thereof And upon a great deliberation it was by them all resolved and agreed That notwithstanding the said Conveyance the said Lands were liable to the said Statute And as to the Iurors who against the Evidence given to them for the Queen gave their Verdict ut supra Process was awarded against them out of the Court of Exchequer for to appear before the Lord Treasurer and the Barons And for their said contempt they were committed to the Fleet and each of them fined 50 l. CLXXVI Moore and Savil 's Case Trin. 27 Eliz. In the Exchequer IN an Ejectione firmae by Moore against Savil the Case was That Tenant in tail leased the Land to the father mother and son for their lives by Indenture in which it was comprehended That forasmuch as the Lessor is but Tenant in tail and so cannot by Law limit these Estates by way of Remainder but jointly in possession and his intent was That because this Lease was procured and obtained at the special suit and costs and charges of the father That the said son should suffer his father and after him his mother to take the profits of the said Lands demised and to occupy and hold the said Lands to their onely profit without interruption of the said son notwithstanding his joint Estate in possession with them Provisum igitur est That if the said son shall challenge claim demand or take any profits of the Lands so demised or enter into the same during the life of his said father or mother That then the Estate to him limited by the said Indenture should cease and be utterly void And it was the clear opinion of the whole Court That this Condition and Proviso was utterly void for it is contrary to the Estate limited before as in the Case cited by Coke at the Bar. If I lease to you my Lands for 20 years Proviso that you shall not occupy the same the two first years the same Proviso is void and contrary and repugnant to the Estate CLXXVII Lord Cromwel and Townsend 's Case Mich. 28 Eliz. In the Star-Chamber HEnry Lord Cromwel exhibited a Bill in the Star-Chamber against Roger Townsend Esquire for that the said Roger Townsend in an Action betwixt James Taverner Plaintiff and James Cromwel Farmor of the said Lord Cromwel Defendant in Trespass in the favour and unlawfull maintenance of the said Taverner did procure a partial Iury to be retorned And upon the hearing of the Cause the matter given in Evidence was That the said Taverner was a Copiholder of the said Lord Cromwel and that the said Lord Cromwel pretending that the said Taverner had forfeited his Copihold caused the said James Cromwel to make an Entry in the right of the said Lord upon the said Taverner upon which Entry Taverner brought an Action of Trespass against the said James Cromwel in which Action the parties were at Issue upon the forfeiture And before any Venire facias issued forth Taverner hearing that one Steward who was Bailiff of the Franchize under the Earl of Arundel and who ought to make the Pannel c. was purposed to have made the said Pannel not duly viz. to retorn therein great Gentlemen of the County who were Lords of Manors in favour of the said Lord Cromwel went unto the said Roger Townsend who was then one of the principal servants and agents of the said Earl and shewed to him that if those great persons and Lords of Manors be retorned for the trial of that Issue peradventure they would not so easily appear for the expedition of the parties as people of lesser condition and also many of them being Lords of Manors and having customary Tenants and therefore not indifferent to try that Issue and prayed his Order to the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel where upon a conference with the said Steward for the making of an indifferent Pannel and shewing to him the making of the said Pannel was not convenient or any equal course to retorn Knights Esquires or Lords of Manors but rather such sufficient persons for the greater expedition of Iustice and indifferency of the trial And afterwards the said Taverner exhibited a Petition shewing all the special matter and praying him to give Order for the making of an indifferent Pannel for the trial of that Cause which Petition was delivered to the said Earl by the said Townsend in the name of the said Taverner Vpon which the Earl did refer the said matter to three of his chiefest agents and Counsellours i. Dicksey Townsend and Carrel and delivered to them the Book of Freeholders within the said Franchise who according to their Commission made a Pannel which was retorned and the Iury passed with the said James Cromwel in the right of the said Lord And if this intermedling of Townsend with this matter as abovesaid c. especially his conference with the Bailiff be maintenance or not was the Question And by the Lord Anderson and the Lord Wray chief Iustices It was delivered for Law That because the said Townsend was in manner a servant of the said Earl who had retorn of Writs and one of his principal Counsellours and agents and hearing Ex insinuatione of the said Taverner the misdemeanour of the Bailiff of his Lord could not do better than to shew to the Bailiff his duty for it concerned the honour of his Lord and also his Inheritance in the Franchise But if the said Townsend had been a mere stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them it had been clearly maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in this Court in the Case of one Gifford Gifford's Case where the parties being at Issue and a Venire facias was to the Sheriff to retorn a Iury a stranger wrote to one of the Iurors who was retorned in the Pannel praying him to appear at the day and to doe in the Cause according to his Conscience and that was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon the full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the sentence of the said Court was acquitted of every Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Council there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CLXXVIII Sir Moil Finch 's Case 33 Eliz. In the Exchequer 2 Roll 184. 1 Cro. 220. Poph. 25. 1 Roll 215. THE Case was this The King and Queen Philip and Mary leased for seventy years for certain Rent payable at the Feasts of Saint Michael and the Annunciation Proviso that if the Rent be behind and not paid by the space of forty days after any of the Feasts aforesaid that the Lease shall cease and be void At Mich. 9 Eliz. the Rent was not paid according to the Proviso but a Month after the said forty days it was paid and Acquittance given for it and so the Rents due after unto 30 Eliz. were duly paid and Acquittances given for the same
indictment and prayed his Clergy c. and demanded Iudgment If the Plaintiff should have this appeal The Plaintiff Replicando said by protestation Nul tiel record and for plea did demur in Law. Dalton for the Plaintiff took Exception to the plea for the conclusion of it viz. Iudgment if appeal where it ought to be Iudgment if he shall be again put to answer And he took a difference where a matter is pleaded against the Plaintiff to which the Plaintiff is party As where a man pleads a Fine levied by the Plaintiff himself there he shall conclude Iudgment if action but where the Fine is pleaded levied by the Ancestors of the Plaintiff there he shall plead Iudgment if against such Fine c. Vide 9 H. 7. 19. At the common Law before the Statute of 3 H. 7. such conviction at the suit of the King did discharge the party convicted from farther trouble but if the indictment upon which he was arraigned be insufficient then it is not any plea. And here the indictment is insufficient for by the Statute of Articuli super Chartas cap. 3. the Coroner of the County together with the Coroner of the King's Houshold shall do the Office which belongs to it and send the roll to which Office two Coroners are requisite but here in the taking of this inquisition there was but one person although two capacities id est Coroner of the County and also Coroner of the Verge and so the indictment was taken Coram non Judice See the Statute of the Star-Chamber which is That the Chancellor c. calling to them one Bishop and one temporal Lord of the King's Council c. If the Chancellor be a Bishop yet another Bishop ought to be called c. If I devise that my lands shall be sold by two Bishops and J. S. hath two Bishopricks yet his sale is not sufficient Egerton contrary Although here is but one person yet there are two Coroners Quando duo jura concurrunt in una persona aequum est ac si essent in diversis At the common Law before the Statute De Articulis super Chartas The Coroner of the Verge by himself might enquire of Murther but because the Kings Court oftentimes removed into another County by reason whereof no enquiry could be made for the remedying thereof that Statute was made which is in the affirmative and doth not abridge the common Law before and therefore it shall have a reasonable construction See the Statute of West 1. cap. 10 By which it is enacted that sufficient men shall be chosen Coroners of the most loyal and the most sage Knights this Statute shall not be taken Stricto sensu that none shall be chosen Coroners but Knights but the Statute requires that sufficient persons shall be chosen As to the Statute of 3 H. 7. It is to be known That the common Law before acquitted was a good Plea and the cause was for the great regard that the common Law had to the life of a man In which case a great mischief as the Statute recites did ensue that to save the appeal of the party they would not arraign the party within the year and day after the murther within which time the offender did compound with the party interessed and so after the year expired all the matter concerning the prosecution at the King's suit was put in oblivion wherefore it was enacted That such offender shall be within the year arraigned at the suit of the King and if the party be acquitted at the Kings suit within the year and day That the Iustices before whom c. should not set the party at large but to remain in prison or to let him to bail untill the year and the day be past and within the said year and day the wife or next heir to the party slain may take their appeal against the party so acquitted or attainted the said acquittal or attainder notwithstanding and he said that these words person attainted did not extend to person convicted for they are two distinct conditions in Law for attainder procures corruption of bloud but the same is not wrought by conviction and every Treason imports in it self Felony but yet notwithstanding they are distinct Offences See 22 E. 4. Coron 44. where it was ordered by all the Iustices of England That none should be arraigned of the death of a man at the suit of the King within the year and day so as the suit of the party be saved And the Iustices counselled all men of Law so to do and that the same be executed as a Law without alteration upon which rule of the Iustices arose an inconvenience for after that order of the Iustices was known The offender would practise with the party to whom the appeal by the Law belonged to obtain from him a release for some sum of money and then when the year and day passed the heinousness of the murther was out of memory This mischief being espied was the occasion of the making of the Statute of 3 H. 7. But the said Statute doth not meet with our Case but our Case is at the common Law for this Statute extends onely unto persons attainted but a person convicted is not touched by it and therefore being out of the words of the Statute it shall be also out of the meaning of it for being a penal Law it shall be taken by equity as all Statutes which give attaint shall be Stricti juris and shall not be taken by equity It hath been objected that the Statute de Frangentibus prisonam 4 E. 1. hath been taken by equity the same is not so for it is not any penal Law but the same mitigates the rigor of the common Law for before that Statute the breaking of the prison was Felony in every case but now it is not Felony but where the party was committed to prison for Felony c. CXCVI. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Formedon of a Manor Dyer 291. 3 Len. 92. the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant did aver the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ doth suppose and upon that issue was taken and found for the Demandant upon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereupon Ioynt-tenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any averment by the Demandant against it the averment hath been received against the Law c. Southcote At the common Law If the Tenant had pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any averment but that was remedied by 34 E. 1. but Ioynt-tenancy by Fine did remain as it was at the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that by that plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given the moyety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioynt-tenancy and the Law doth not intend that he would so slightly depart with his land
of the Roll will be no hurt So here it is not so formal as it ought yet it is not any prejudice to us But the great matter is if the Plaintiff may assign new Errors and have a new Writ of Diminution two of the Errors assigned in the Mesne Proces but the third is in the Record it self i. the Iudgment And there is no doubt but that a man may have divers Writs of Error but he shall have but one Supersedeas and so divers Errors but one delay Also it is not a Writ of Diminution which we have sued for I do not say that it is a thing below which is not here but I say that is not a thing below which ought to be viz. there is not any discontinuance but the Court awarded that Writ for their satisfaction for the non esse of the thing shall come on the other side and 9 E. 4. the Court awarded a Certiorare to enform themselves And he said that after a Scire facias the Plaintiff may assign new Errors Trin. 20. H. 7. Rot. 84. betwixt Edge-Court and London a Writ of Error was brought against two and after Errors assigned one of the Defendants died before a new Writ of Error could be assigned But here the first Record is discontinued and determined for which there is not now any Record which may be objected against us nor any thing in it as 20 H. 7. A man avows for a Rent due at such a day and is nonsuit Now he may avow for the same Rent and suppose the same to be due at another day Estoppell for he shall not be estopped by the Record upon which he was non-suit and so here upon the whole matter the Writ out of the Chancery is not material and the Roll is not misplaced but is in the right Office Also this is not a Writ of Diminution but a Writ to inform the Iustices Wherefore upon the whole matter the Writ of Error will well lie It was adjourned IV. Savacres Case Rot. 7. Mich. 31 and 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Error Post 185. A Writ of Error was brought by Savacre and the Bishop of Glocester upon a Iudgment given in a Quare Impedit for the Queen and Errors assigned 1. Attachment was awarded against the Defendants in the Quare Impedit retornable Quind Pasc at which day Savacre appeared and cast an Essoyn and notwithstanding that a Distress was awarded against them both retornable Crastin Trinit and this awarding of the Distress was erroneous for the Essoyn was as appeareth to save c. and therefore against him no Distress ought to have been awarded And upon alledging of Diminution the Record of the Essoyn was certified but the same doth not appear upon the Plea Roll. 2. This Record is ideo ipsi in misericordia and so both the Defendants are amerced for their default of appearance 15 Pasch whereas Savacre was then Essoyned and so no cause to amerce him Coke The Original Writ was sued Mich. 26 Eliz. retorned 15 Hillarii and then both the Defendants made default for which an Attachment was awarded retornable 15 Pasc and then Savacre appeared and Iudgment given quod ipsi sint in misericordia in which point the Error is apparent but I conceive that it is not Error for upon the Attachment the parties ought to put in Sureties for their appearance and the said Sureties took upon them that the Defendants and each of them should appear and if they or any of them make default they shall be amerced And so here this Iudgment ideo ipsi in misericodia doth refer to the Sureties not to the parties for the Defendants shall not be amerced until the end of the Suit and but once onely in an Action which see Book of Entries 464 where there was but one Defendant and therefore if the amercements shall be referred to the Defendant then it shall be ideo ipse not ipsi c. And that is the Reason wherefore the Queen nor an Infant shall not find Pledges for no amercement shall be upon their default therefore it were in vain for them to find Pledges c. If the Sureties be amerced where they ought not to be amerced by the Law yet the Defendant shall not have a Writ of Error thereupon for he is not the party grieved by the amercement and upon that Reason it is if in a Scire facias against the Bail erroneous Iudgment be given the Defendant in the Action shall not have a Writ of Error The awarding of the Distress upon the Roll against both where one of them only made default is not Error especially as this case is for although one of them was essoyned until the day aforesaid yet at that day they make default and so the Distress well awarded against them and although the Writ was not well awarded yet when they appear Crastin Trinit at the day of the Retorn of the Distress all mesn defaults in the Process are saved and so the misawarding of the Distress by appearance after is supplyed as 39 E. 3. 7. The Law requires that in an Action founded upon the Statute of Praemunire c. 27 E. 3. the Defendant gave Garnishment by two Months yet if the Defendant not having warning appear now the Process is good enough So 9 E. 4. 18. where upon any Process the Defendant doth appear although the day of appearance be not lawful yet he shall be put to answer and see many Cases there to that purpose And so was the Opinion of the Court in the principal Case As to the second Error That this Iudgment ideo ipsi in misericordia shall be reserved to the Sureties onely and not to the party and that the Defendant shall be but once amerced in one Action True it is he shall be amerced but once for one default but if there be many defaults the Defendant shall be amerced severally for the several defaults for every offence and it should be unreasonable that the Sureties should be amerced and that the Defendant who is the principal should be freed which see in the book of Entries 193. ipsique plegii sui in misericordia c. V. Nevil and Cook 's Case Trinit 32 Eliz. Rot. 76. In the King's-Bench IN an Action of Covenant the Plaintiff declared Covenant That where it was covenanted betwixt the Plaintiff and the Defendant That each of Them upon request should be accountable to the other for all the Corn growing upon such a place and that upon such account the one of them should deliver to the other the moiety of the Corn or the profit of it and whereas the Defendant had taken all the said Corn scil twenty loads of Wheat forty loads of Barley and thirty loads of Pease growing upon the said Lands and had been required to render account of the said Corn which he refused to do The Defendant traversed the request upon which they were at issue and it was hereupon
Law doth admit the oath of the party in his own cause as in Debt the Defendant shall wage his Law Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such oath be accepted in this Case by the same reason in all cases where is secrecy and no external proof upon which would follow great inconveniencies and although such an Oath hath been before accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we see no reason to multiply such Presidents The Declaration is that the Plaintiff was robbed of 10 l. de denariis ipsius querentis and upon the Evidence it appeareth That the Plaintiff was the Receiver of the Lady Rich and had received the said money for the use of the said Lady and exception was taken to it by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich the said money And it was agreed that if he who was robbed after he hath made Hue and Cry doth not farther follow the thieves yet his Action doth remain CX Large 's Case Mich. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 182. THE Case was A. seised of Lands in Fee devised the Lands to his wife until William his son should come to the age of 22 years and then the Remainder of part of the Lands to his two sons A. and John The Remainder of other part of his Lands to two others of his said sons upon condition That if any of his said sons before William should come to the age of 22 years shall go about to make any sale of any part c. he shall for ever lose the Lands and the same shall remain over c. And before his said son William came to the age of 22 years one of the other sons Leased that which to him belonged for 60 years and so from 60 years to 60 years until 240 years ended c. Bois A. and J. are joynt-tenants of the Remainder and he said That the opinion of Audley Lord Chancellor of England is not Law scil where a man deviseth Lands to two and to their heirs they are not joynt-tenants as to the survivor but if one of them dieth the survivor shall not have the whole but the heir of his that dieth shall have the moyety See 30 H. 8. Br. Devise 29. And he said That this Lease although it be for so many years is not a sale intended within the Will and so is not a Ioynture 46 E. 3. One was bounden that he should not alien certain Lands and the Obligor did thereof enfeoff his son and heir apparent the same was held to be no alienation within the Condition of the Obligation Of the other side it was argued The remainder doth not vest presently for it is incertain if it shall vest at all for if William dieth before he cometh to the age of 22 years it was conceived by him that the Remainder shall never vest for the words of the Will are Then the Lands shall remain c. 34 E. 3. Formedon 36. Land is devised to A. for life and if he be disturbed by the heir of the Devisor that then the Land shall remain to D. Here D. hath not any remainder before that A. be disturbed It was farther argued that here is a good Condition and that the Devisee is not utterly restrained from sale but onely untill a certain time scil to the age of William of 22 years And it was said that this Lease is a Covenous Lease being made for 240 years without any Rent reserved As such a Lease made for 100 years or 200 years is Mortmain as well as if it had been an express Feoffment or Alienation But it was said by some Antea 36 37. that here is not any sale at all nor any lease for the Lessor himself hath not any thing in the Land demised As if a man disseiseth a Feme sole and seaseth the Lands and afterwards marrieth the disseisee he shall avoid his own Lease 5 E 3. One was bound that he should not alien such a Manor the Obligor alieneth one Acre parcell of it the Obligation is forfeit See 29 H. 8. Br. Mortgage 36. A. leaseth to a religious house for 100 years and so from 100 years to 100 years untill 800 years be encurred the same is Mortmain Vide Stat. 7 E. 1. Colore termini emere vel vendere And in the principal Case if the Devisee had entred into a Statute to the value of the Land leased by the intent of the Will the same had been a sale and such was the opinion of the whole Court and by the Court the word in perpetuum shall not be referred to the words precedent but unto the words following scil in perpetuum perdat the Lands And if a custome be in the case that the Infant of the age of 15 years may sell his Lands if he make a Lease the same is not warranted by the custome And afterwards it was adjudged by the whole Court that the Lease made as before was a sale within the intent of the Will of the Devisor CXI Brooke 's Case Hill. 29 Eliz. In the King's-Bench APpeal of Burglary was brought against Brooke who was found guilty and before Iudgment given the Plaintiff died And now Egerton moved that Iudgment should be given for the Queen upon that verdict or at least that the Declaration in the Appeal should be in lieu of an Indictment and that the Appealee be thereupon arraigned and put to answer the same For if the Appellant had been Nonsuit or released the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen Coke God hath now by the death of the party delivered the Defendant and it is not like where the Plaintiff releaseth for there it is the default of the Act of the party but here it is the Act of God and he held it for a rule That where auterfoits acquit is a good Plea there also auterfoits convict shall be a good Plea And it was holden in Sir Tho. Holcroft's Case Sir Thomas Holcroft's Case That where the party is convicted at the suit of the Queen there the Appeal doth not afterwards lie Wray If the Appellant dieth before Verdict the Defendant shall be arraigned at the suit of the King But if his life hath been once in jeopardy by Verdict he conceived that it shall not again be drawn into danger and some were of opinion that the Defendant should be arraigned at the suit of the Queen upon the whole Record and plead auterfoits acquit and that they said was the surest way CXII Ognel and Paston 's Case 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer .. 1 Cro. 64. CLement Paston was Defendant in an Action of Debt brought against him by George Ognel upon an Escape and the Case was this Francis Woodhouse was bound in a Recognizance to the said Ognel Whereupon Ognel sued forth a Scire facias and upon two Nihils retorned had
43 E. 3. 33. In an Action brought against a Smith for his negligence in curing of a Horse which he took upon him to cure the Defendant was driven to traverse Absque hoc that the Horse perished in default of his care Dalton contrary Where in doing of a lawfull Act by a mishap a damage cometh to another against the will of the doer no punishment shall follow See the Case cited by the other side in 6 E 4. 7. 8. If he might have done more than he had done to have prevented the mischief he should be punished but if he could not have done more than he hath done or otherwise than he hath done to prevent it he is dispunishable and he may Uti jure suo although it be to the prejudice of another See 12 H. 8. 2. 3. Harcourt's Case If I cannot otherwise let the water out of my Land I may justifie the letting of it in your Land which is adjoining although that your Land be drowned thereby Sometimes ignorance of the party shall excuse the offence As if my Dog worry your Sheep if I do not know of such ill quality in him I shall not be punished for the same And it doth not appear that the Defendant had notice of the ruinousness of the walls although now it appeareth that they were ruinous and for that cause the floorfell for the Defendant said That the walls were ruinous in occultis absconditis partibus ipsorum And here needs not any Traverse For it is confessed That the floor of the Shop was surcharged but the same is avoided and excused because that the walls were ruinous in occultis absconditis ipsorum partibus And forasmuch as our Landlord who is also the Landlord of the Plaintiff hath let to us the Shop to lay there the weight of 30 Tun therefore the Defendant hath good right as to such weight against the Lessor of the Plaintiff and all others claiming under him And here the Plaintiff hath declared of a Lease from week to week Quamdiu ambabus partibus placuerit and hath not averred the continuance of his Lease c. Godfrey A Lease is made from year to year ut supra c. The Lessor brings Debt for the second year he need not to aver the continuance of the Lease for when the second year doth begin the Lessor cannot put him out that year But we upon the matter have averred the continuance for we have said Et sic possessionatus existens c. Manwood The Declaration is That the Defendant Nequitur malitiose intendens c. tantum ponderis was laid upon the floor Ita quod vi ponderis dirupta fuit contabulatio And the Plea of the Defendant is Quod muri in partibus occultis absconditis ruinosi fuerunt c. ideo corruerunt So as the Plaintiff speaks of the floor and the Defendant of the walls and so the Defendant doth not answer the Plaintiff for the Shopman ought not to go into the Cellar nor the Cellar-man into the walls But Dalton said That the Plea was Quod diruptio fractio contabulationis fuit ex eo quod muri ruinosi fuerunt in partibus occultis absconditis At another day it was argued by Flemming for the Plaintiff A voluntary and unlawfull act is laid to the charge of the Defendant who pleads special matter to excuse himself but doth not answer the point of the Action but onely that the fall was sudden Et quia muri fuerunt ruinosi in partibus occultis c. whereas we have declared that the weight was the cause thereof 3 H. 6. Double Plea 31. In an Action upon the Case for negligent keeping of fire the house of the Plaintiff was burnt he ought to take a Traverse without that that it was burnt by the ill keeping of the fire of the Defendant and he needs not to aver the continuance of the Tenancy at will 38 H. 6. 27. A Lessee for life assigns his Estate to B. who Leases at will to C. B. is disseised by D. and C. ousted C. re-enters and brings Trespass he must aver the Life of A. but not of B. nor the continuance of the will. Atkinson contrary I conceive there needs no Traverse for the matter of the Declaration is expresly confessed and avoided 5 H. 7. 12 13. where one makes Title to common or Rent by prescription if the other pleaded unity of possession he needs not traverse so where he claims B. for his Villain c. B. saith that he is a Bastard there needs no Traverse We have confessed in pleading Quod gravitate ponderis the floor fell down but we say farther that the cause was because the walls were ruinous c. and here is matter in Law Who ought to repair them The Lease was made unto the Defendant 29 Julii and the floor fell 30 Julii the day following and if by Law the Defendant ought to repair them it was impossible for him to do it and that shall excuse him If one hath a Shop and another a Cellar under it and the Shop minatur rainam there is a Writ in the Register De reparatione facienda 153 c. And it lieth against him who ought to repair by prescription or by the Law. And we who are the Lessee are not bound to repair for if the ground Timber be in decay and so the house ruinous at the time of the Lease it is a good Plea in an Action of Waste if the house fell in such defect for the Lessee is not bound to such reparation scil for great timber which was rotten at the time of the Lease But if after the Lease it becomes rotten for want of covering it is otherwise See 12 H. 8. 1. And here the Plaintiff hath remedy against his Lessor for he is bound to the reparations by the Law and not the Lessee And as he may have the said Writ De reparatione facienda before the mischief so he may now have after the mischief and therefore no Law binds the Defendant to repair Nor is there any custome pleaded to that purpose and also for as much as the occasion of the Cause of action was the ruinousness of the walls the Defendant shall not be charged with the same And also he shall not be charged with a thing he could not prevent Manwood The Defendant hath pleaded that the fall of the floor was eo quod the walls were ruinous in partibus occultis which was a secret thing and unknown unto the Defendant upon which the Plaintiff hath demurred and so confessed the plea of the Defendant to be true and that he was ignorant of the feebleness of the walls and therefore he needs not any Traverse And here the Defendant hath pleaded That the Shop was demised to him for greater carriage Gent Baron was of opinion That the Defendant had not fully answered to the Declaration for he is charged with the laying of so much weight
the Lessee entred 29 Sept. which is before the Term begins For the words of the Habendum are From the Feast of St. Michael therefore the Feast of St. Michael is no part of the Term and then was the Defendant a Disseisor and the day after the Term began which cannot alter his Estate but that he continueth a Disseisor and then he is not in by force of the said Lease and so no Rent can be due Williams As the Declaration is here the same is not any disseisin for the Plaintiff set forth in his Declaration That the Lessee the Defendant hath occupied the Land demised the whole year and so hath not admitted any Disseisin it being in his election to make it a Disseisin or not Clench Iustice Be it a Disseisin or not or be it that the Defendant entreth or not he is to pay the Rent Gawdy The Lessee is a Disseisor and continueth a Disseisor and yet Debt lieth against him for the Rent by reason of the privity of Contract which see Rysden's Case 24 H. 8. Dyer 5. And so in our Case Quod fuit concessum per totam Curiam and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXII Monings and Worley 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 561. Error IN Debt upon an Obligation brought by Mary Worley against Monings in the Common-Pleas The Condition was That if Mary Worley the Plaintiff in the said Action doth not depart out of the service of the Defendant without license of the Defendant Monings nor marry her self but with his consent Then if the Defendant shall pay to the said Mary within twenty eight days after demand by her made of Monings at his house at Waldersey 100 l. That then c. And the Defendant in the said Action pleaded That the said Mary the Plaintiff in the said Action 4 Maii 30 Eliz. departed out of his service without licence The Plaintiff Mary by Replication said That 6 Septemb. the same year she departed out of his service with licence and that 4 Octob. after she demanded the said 100 l. at Waldersey aforesaid and he refused to pay it Absque hoc that she departed out of his service 4 Maii 30 Eliz. without licence and the Writ bare date 18. of October next after the demand And it was found for the Plaintiff and Iudgment given for her in the Common-Pleas and now a Writ of Error is brought by Monings Tanfield The Iudgment ought to be reversed for always the Replication in such cases ought to contain sufficient Cause of Action and sufficient breach of the Condition or otherwise the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment although that the Issue be found for him as 7 E. 4. 31. In trespass for taking of goods of A. and B. A. pleads Not guilty B. justifies the Plaintiff makes Title to the goods by a gift B. traverseth the gift and it is found for him against the Plaintiff A. is found guilty Now although A. be found guilty yet the Plaintiff shall not have judgment against him for it is found that he hath not any Title to the goods As in Debt upon a Bond against A. and B. A. pleads Non est factum B. pleads the release of the Plaintiff and it is found the Deed of A. and that the Plaintiff hath released to B. the Plaintiff shall never have Iudgment for upon the Verdict it appears that he hath not cause of Action And here in the Replication there is not a sufficient breach shewed of the Condition for although that Mary hath not departed from the service of the said Defendant yet the same is not material but the Defendant had twenty eight days after the demand to pay the 100 l. but the same is not so here for the Plaintiff hath prevented the Defendant for the demand is alledged to be 4. Oct. and the Writ bears date 18. Octob. the same year and so the Defendant had not his time allowed him Gawdy The issue is taken upon the departure out of his service so as the demand is not now material and therefore the alledging of the same is surplusage and shall not hurt And the Defendant hath pleaded in Bar the departure of the Plaintiff out of his service upon which he relieth and the demand set forth in the Replication is not to be regarded as to prejudice the Plaintiff As 3 Ma. Dyer 115. Lessee for years covenants that he will not cut any Trees The Lessor assigns the breach of the Covenant in succidendo twenty Oaks The Lessee pleads that he did not cut the twenty Trees nor any of them The Iury found that the Defendant had cut down ten Trees The Plaintiff upon that Verdict shall have Iudgment for the rest is but surplusage and more put in issue than there needs to be Fenner It is not any full Plea to say That the Plaintiff did not depart out of the service of the Defendant 4 Maii for if she departeth at any other time she shall not recover for which cause she ought to have pleaded That she continued in his service untill such a day and then she departed with his licence and the inducement to the traverse ought to be sufficient matter otherwise it is not a full Plea nor the Traverse is not good And if it be surplusage yet if it be not matter against her self it makes the Plea naught which see 1 H. 7. 29. 6 H. 7. 16. Gawdy conceived that the Iudgment was well given for the Defendant was at his liberty to plead the departure of the Plaintiff without his licence or to stand upon the demand And now although he pleads the departure yet the demand is not confessed And afterwards the Iudgment given in the Court of Common-Pleas was affirmed CXXIII Bashpool 's Case 27 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was this The Father seised of Lands Stiles Rep. 148. is bound in an Obligation and deviseth his Lands to his Wife untill his Son cometh to the age of twenty one years the remainder to the Son in Fee and dieth and no other Lands descend or come to the Son from his Father It was moved by Godfrey That the Heir in that case at his Election might wave the Devise and take by descent or è contra See 9 E. 4. 18. by Needham But Gawdy and Shute Iustices 3 Len. 118. were of opinion That the Son should be adjudged in by Descent Clench contrary CXXIV Bennet and Shortwright 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench THE Case was 1 Cro. 206. The Defendant sued the Plaintiff in the Spiritual Court for Tythes in kind and now the Plaintiff prayed a Prohibition and suggested That they had used in the said Parish time out of mind c. to take the tenth Sheaf in satisfaction of Tythe of Corn c. and in those years in which the Plaintiff had supposed the subtraction of his Tythes he had severed the tenth Sheaf from the nine parts and the Parson would not take
's Case Mich. 31 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 291. 1 Len. 247. 3 Len. 174. That whereas he was possessed of a parcel of Land called the Parsonage lying adjoyning to a certain River from the 29 of May 29 Eliz. untill the day of the bringing of this Writ the Defendant had the said twentieth day of May stopt the said River with certain Loads of Earth and so it continued untill the fourteenth day of February by which his land was drowned and so he had lost the profit of it by that time And it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment That upon the Declaration there doth not appear any cause of Action for the Plaintiff hath made Title to the Land drowned from the twentieth of May so as that day is excluded and the Nusance is said to be made the twentieth day and so it appeareth the Nusance was before the possession of the Plaintiff and if it were so then cannot he complain of any wrong done before his time To which it was answered That although the stopping was made before his possession yet the continuance of the same is after and a new wrong for which an Action lieth as 5 H. 7. 4. It was presented That an Abbat had not cleansed his Ditch c. by reason of which the Highway is stopt The Successor shall be put to answer to the said Indictment by reason of the continuance of it And see that continuation of a Nusance is as it were a new Nusance 14 and 15 Eliz. 320. And it may be that the Plaintiff was not damnified untill long time after the twentieth day of May scil after the stopping And the words of the Writ here are satisfied and true And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CXXX Trusto and Ewer 's Case Pasc 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 1 Cro. 23. IN this Case it was agreed for Law That if a Controversie be betwixt two for the Title of a Lease for years and they submit the matter to Arbitrement and the Arbitrators award that one of them shall have the term the same is a good Gift of the interest of the term See 12 Ass 25. 14 H. 4. 19. 24. But if the Award be that the one shall permit the other to enjoy the term the same is no Gift of the interest therein See as to the Arbitrement 9 E. 4. 44. CXXXI Andrew 's Case Pasc 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. 1 Cro. 214. IN the Case of Andrews of Grays Inn it was holden by Gawdy and Fenner Iustices That if a Lease for years be made by Deed indented with these words demisi ad firmam tradidi That upon that Writ of Covenant lieth against the Lessor if he himself entreth upon the Lessee but contrary if a stranger enter if it hath not clause of Warranty For by Fenner when Covenant is brought upon that word Demisi the Plaintiff shall recover the term it self but not damages and that cannot the Plaintiff do when a stranger entreth and that was holden for clear Law See 9 Eliz. Dyer 257. A covenant against the Heir in such case CXXXII Bigg and Clark 's Case Hill. 32 Eliz. Rot. 549. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case in the Court of Hertford the Plaintiff declared How that the Defendant hired a Horse of the Plaintiff to carry three Bushels of Coals from Ware to his House in Hertford and that the Defendant in consideration thereof did promise the Plaintiff quod ipse in via praedicta nollet onerare the said Horse aliter than with the said three Bushels of Coals And the Plaintiff said That the Defendant had loaded the said Plaintiff's Horse with a greater weight than with the said Coals and so had hurt his Horse upon which the Plaintiff recovered And Error was brought and the Error assigned was this That it is not specially shewed how the Defendant aliter loaded the said Horse with what thing As 19 H. 6. In Debt against Executors they plead That they have onely expended such a sum of the Goods of the Testator in Funeral expences absque hoc that they have administred aliter vel alio modo the Plaintiff cannot Reply and say that they have administred aliter vel alio modo without shewing how Another Error was assigned because it is not certainly shewed how the Horse was hurt but that Exception was not allowed for it is not the point of the Action but for the first matter the Iudgment was reversed CXXXIII Toley and Windham 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. IN an Action upon the Case the Plaintiff declared 1 Cro. 206. 3 Len. 150. That whereas certain controversies were betwixt the Plaintiff and Defendant for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in his life time and whereas he had brought a Writ of Subpoena out of the Chancery against the Defendant for the said profits taken by the Father of the Defendant in his life intending to put in a Bill against the Defendant in the said Court The Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff would stay his intended Suit promised That if the Plaintiff can prove that the Father of the Defendant took the profits or had the possession of the said Land under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff that he should pay to him for all the said profits And farther declared That he had proved that his Father had taken the profits under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff Coke took up Exception to the Declaration because it is not shewed How and by what means under the Title of the Father of the Plaintiff he took the profits as by Lease for that is traversable Gawdy Iustice The Son hath not any cause of Action or Suit for the profits taken in the time of the Father therefore the staying of Suit arising from such matter is not any consideration But as to the other Exception because it is not shewed how and by what Title he took the profits it is well enough As unto the other Exception it was moved at another day that there was a Case betwixt Stone and Withypool An Infant promiseth to pay a simple Contract Stone and Withypool's Case and thereupon there was a Suit in the Chancery but it was holden that it was not maintainable for the promise was void because there was no consideration And it was agreed by all the Iustices that this Action would not lie for the Plaintiff hath declared That where certain Controversies were betwixt the Father of the Defendant and him scil the Plaintiff himself for the profits of certain Lands which the Father of the Defendant had taken in the time of the Father of the Plaintiff c. and he doth not shew that he himself is Heir or Executor of his Father and therefore the Chancery cannot give him any remedy And on the other
of it is taken away by the act of the Plaintiff himself CLIV. Heal 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench HEal a Bencher of the Inner Temple being at the Bar Wiat another Apprentice at Law informed the Court against the said Heal and shewed That where his Client had obtained a Iudgment in the King's-Bench The said Heal being of Council with the other part did advise his Client to bring the party who had obtained the Iudgment into the Chancery and he procured an Order against him Co. 3 Inst 12. 123 124. 4 Inst 86 91. by which he was cast into Prison Which matter Heal could not excuse but submitted himself to the Court saying That he had seen a precedent which induced him so to doe and that was the Case of one Prince Princes Case where a Iudgment given in this Court was drawn into question and examined in the Chancery But the Iustices said That the same was an ill precedent and against the Statute of 4 H. 4. which is That no Iudgment be undone but by Error or Attaint CLV Gray and Constable 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench SIR Thomas Gray covenanted with the Lady Constable That where he is possessed of a Lease for twenty one years of certain Lands That he will assure convey and assign the said Lease to one Nevil excepting the two last years of the said twenty one years and he said Sir Tho. Gray was bound in a Bond to perform the Covenants of the said Indenture upon which Indenture the Lady brought Debt against the said Sir Tho. Gray who pleaded the Conditions and the performance of them The Plaintiff replicando said That the Defendant non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over the said Lease upon which they were at issue And at the day of the Nisi Prius it was moved by Cooper and Beaumont That the Issue was misjoined for the Defendant pleads as the Covenant it self is That he had assured conveyed and assigned the Lease and so pleaded the performance of other Covenants c. The Plaintiff assigned the breach in this Quod non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over which word transposuit is not in the Covenant nor in the pleading of the performance thereof and the English word set over although it sounds the same with assigning doth not help the matter and if the Latin word doth not agree with the matter non refert of the English word although in the Plea there be this word Anglice set over Note the Covenant was ut supra The Plaintiff assigned the breach Quod non assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over c. And the Defendant pleaded Quod assuravit conveiavit transposuit Anglice set over c. And the Court was clear of opinion That the Issue for that cause was not well joined And afterwards by the assent of the parties it was amended CLVI Doghead 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Hutt 35. Hob. 250. Antea 110. 1 Cro. 177. And. 116. AN Information was upon the Statute of 27 Eliz. cap. 4. by the party grieved which Statute gives unto the King one moyety of the value and the other moyety to the party grieved The Plaintiff was nonsuit It was holden by the Court that he shall not pay costs and damages by the Statute of 18 Eliz. for the Statute as the Title of the same doth imply is to redress Disorders in common Informers and so is the Preamble and the words also of the clause of costs and damages are Every such Informer and so by Ive Secondary of the Crown-Office An Action given to the party grieved is not a popular Action and the Statute of 18 Eliz. extends onely to popular Actions CLVII Cony and Chomley 's Case Pasch 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN an Ejectione Firmae after Verdict in Arrest of Iudgment it was moved That the Plaintiff had declared in Ejectione Firmae Quod cum Robertus Diggon per Indenturam suam gerent dat 20 Maii 1 Cro. 773. 890. dimisit c. where he ought to have said iisdem die anno For although the Indenture bear date ut supra yet it may be that it was delivered at another day and then it doth begin to be a Demise And if in an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit to pay money upon request although it be found for the Plaintiff yet if no day be put in the Declaration when the request was made but onely licet saepius requisitus in case where a request ought to be made there the Plaintiff shall not have Iudgment as it hath been oftentimes adjudged Quod omnes Justiciarii concesserunt But yet afterwards notwithstanding the Objection aforesaid Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff CLVIII Marsh and Jones 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin the Case upon the Evidence was 3 Len. 114. That before the Statute of Quia Emptores terrarum a man made a Feoffment in Fee to hold of him by the service solvendi post quamlibet vacationem sive alienationem the value of the annual profits of the Lands And it was holden by the Court That the value shall be intended such a value as was the value at the time of the Feoffment made and not as it is improved by succession of time CLIX. Willoughby 's Case Mich. 29 and 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench WIlliam Willoughby and two other were indicted 1 Cro. 3 Len. 216. That whereas the Parson of the Church of D. and all his predecessours have used to have Common in such a place the said Willoughby c. vi armis c. had inclosed it and the Inclosure was upon their own Lands It was moved That upon this matter they ought not to be indicted but the party grieved is put to his Action as where a Presentment is made of a Disseisin See 27 Ass 20. And it was the Case of one Morden Morden's Case 1 Cro. Madox Case 29 Eliz. upon the stopping of a Way upon his own Land And it was said That if it should be upon the Lands of another it were not material for it is but a hindrance from the taking of Common which cannot be vi armis Also it was said That the Indictment is recorded and certified as found before the Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery and they cannot take such Presentments And although the said Iustices of Assise and Gaol-delivery were in rei veritate also Iustices of the Peace yet the Indictment being recorded and certified to be taken before them in quality of Iustices of the Peace will not help it for the Court shall not respect any other authority but that which appeareth upon Record and therefore for the causes aforesaid they were discharged by the Court. CLX Collet and Robston 's Case Error Hill. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Len. 149. COllet and Andrews recovered in a
engrossed because that now the Divorce is avoided for Henry in his second marriage hath issue therefore there is no perpetua frigiditas c. but at the last it was engrossed because the sentence of the Divorce doth continue in its force and then Humphrey born in the second marriage is the first son of Henry lawfully begotten and so capable of the use to him limited upon the Feoffment of Henry 22 E. 4 Fitz. Consultation 51. by Catesby where my father and mother are divorced without lawfull cause and afterwards they marry themselves elsewhere and die the said Divorce as long as it is in force shall bind me in point of inheritance and I cannot have an Action as heir c. during the Divorce is in force For the Divorce being a spiritual Iudgment shall not be reformed but in the spiritual Court and therefore this sentence of Divorce Causa perpetuae frigiditatis as long as it is in force not repealed or reversed shall bind all persons But in some cases such a Divorce shall not disable the party to sue as if a man bringeth an Action De muliere abducta cum bonis viri where after the trespass committed the husband and wife are divorced yet the Action lieth for this Action is not in the right but in possession onely and in such Action Never accoupled in legal Matrimony is not any plea but the Defendant ought to answer to the possession Not his wife for although they are divorced yet the Action lieth and if Iudgment is given in the spiritual Courts the Courts of the King shall receive and admit of them as long as they are in their force The Abbat of Fountain's Case 9 H. 6. 32. the custome of the Abby was That at every vacation of the Abbat the Monks should proceed to a new Election and that he who should be chosen by the greater number of the Monks should be Abbat and the Case was That upon such avoidance one A. was elected by the greater number of voices scil 22 Monks And B. was chosen by the lesser number scil 20 Monks but notwithstanding that B. entred and carried himself as Abbat by the Institution of the Visitor and made a Deed by consent of the Covent and died it was holden That the said Deed should bind the House for here is a spiritual Act scil the Institution of the Visitor which being in force shall bind us and our Law 34 H. 6. 38. upon contention betwixt two Patrons claiming the presentment unto a Church the Bishop awarded jure Patronatus which found for one of them upon which the Bishop admitted the Clerk of him for whom it was found by the jure Patronatus and afterwards the other party brought a Quare impedit and it was found for him Now this judicial Act done by the Bishop shall excuse the Bishop from any disturbance Fenner Serjeant contrary Although that the sentence of this Divorce be set down in peremptory and final terms as matrimonium cassum irritum nullum yet our Law shall respect the cause and ground of it scil Perpetua frigiditas c. and now it appeareth by the success of the second marriage scil the issue Humphrey that the cause and matter upon which the Divorce was grounded c. was an offence of the time and not of nature for he is now recovered and in as much as the Church hath erred in the sentence of this divorce which error is now apparent this Court shall adjudge according to the truth of the matter as the spiritual Law ought to have adjudged and not as they have adjudged And he cited Fox's Case 16 Eliz. The said Fox being Parson of a Church was deprived in the Parliament time for incontinency and by the same Parliament all incontinencies were pardoned Now upon the matter we are to adjudge this deprivation meerly void without any other spiritual act At another day the Case was argued by Walmsley Serjeant That the sentence definitive of the spiritual Court in cause of divorce causa frigiditatis should stand and he argued much in what manner the Law of the Church and the Law of the Law should determine marriage and he argued that the right of marriage was determinable by the spiritual Law and he said that such sentences ought to be passed by our Law and taken notice of and therefore he who pleads a Divorce ought to shew before what Iudge the Divorce is had to the intent the Iudges may know to what persons they shall write for the trial of it and it appears in our books That our Law takes upon it the Conusance of the competency of an Ecclesiastical Iudge which see 2 E. 4. 15 and 16. The Iudges of the temporal Courts of the King have determined That the Pope is not a competent Iudge within this Realm and it is true the Common Law doth yeild unto the Law of the Church the trial and determination of the right of marriage but the trial of the possession of the marriage retains to it self As if an Infant marrieth within the age of consent and afterwards at full age of consent doth disagree now the common Law shall determine that the same is not any marriage So 11 H. 4. 167. The temporal Court shall adjudge upon marriage in fact and in possession but if the party will plead 1 Len. 53 181. 3 Len. 129. That they were never accoupled in lawfull matrimony a Writ shall go unto the Bishop to certifie the same and in trespass De muliere abducta cum bonis viri and in Cui in vita c. this issue not his Wife is to be tried by the temporal Court of the King for the right of the marriage is not in question but it is sufficient if it were a marriage in fact and in possession See 44 Ass 12. 13. and see 21 H. 7. 39. The temporal Court shall determine of the marriage if void or voidable A Deacon marrieth a Wife that marriage is not void so of a Priest but if a man marrieth a Nun the marriage is void But in our Case here is a sentence definitive in a cause of Divorce in which Case it doth not belong to us to examine the cause but be the Divorce right or wrong it shall stand c. 10 E. 3. Bar. 296. Nisi sit quoad thor tantum vel causa castitatis And see by Shelley 28 H. 8. 13. If they of the spiritual Court give Iudgment in any cause be it true or false untill it be defeated or reversed it shall bind all the world See 22 E. 4. Fitz. Consultation 5. Corbet's Case 4 H. 7. 14. by Oxenbridge 18 E. 4. 30. by Chock and 9 E. 4. 24. He who pleads a Divorce ought to shew before what Iudge the Divorce was had but that is not to examine the matter but to know to what person the Court shall write for the trial of it It is true that in case of Resignation and Deprivation but in case
conjugem matrimonium non esse c. Eosque praecipimus ab invicem seperari Vid. secundum partem Summae Sylvestrianae Si Ecclesia sit decepta in hoc quod ille in quo erat impedimentum carnalem copulam cum alia perfecerit redintegrabitur praecedens matrimonium dirimetur secundum quamvis de sententia Ecclesiae factam Et alibi Si Ecclesia se deceptam invenierit ex hoc quod impedimentum quod judicavit perpetuum apparet temporale redintegrabitur primum matrimonium c. And afterwards the Case was adjourned Afterwards that is to say Mich. 30 and 31 Eliz. the Case was moved again and Iudgment was prayed for the Plaintiff and then the Lord Anderson Ex assensu sociorum commanded that Iudgment should be entred for the Plaintiff and shewed unto the Council of both parties That about the Certificate which the four Doctors have shewed unto us of their opinions upon the point we our selves have conferred with the said Doctors who have given us their answers That the said sentence of Divorce being yet in force not reversed is peremptory and not subject to the success and although in the examinations and depositions taken in the Ecclesiastical Court no matter appeareth upon which such peremptory Divorce might be granted yet it might be as we are informed by the said Doctors that upon the examination of Physicians and Matrons sufficient matter did appear to the said Ecclesiastical Iudges which for modesty sake ought not to be entred of Record and that appeareth within the sentence i. Habito sermone cum matronis medicis which speech not entred of Record causa qua supra might be the cause that induced the Ecclesiastical Iudges to give sentence for the Divorce notwithstanding that the matter within the Record be too general to prove naturalem frigiditatem generandi but rather maleficium and afterwards Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff and so the sentence is bound by the Divorce as long as the sentence doth continue in force See this Case in Coke 5 Part. Where upon a Writ of Error brought 41 Eliz. the Iudgment was affirmed CCVIII Gittinson and Tyrrel 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas GIttinson brought an Action of Debt against Tyrrel Warden of the Fleet by a Bill of Privilege but he would not appear and the Court was in great doubt what remedy the Plaintiff hath to compell the Defendant to appear For he cannot be fore-judged the Court because he hath an Estate of Inheritance in the said Office And afterwards it was surmised to the Court That the said Tyrrel had made a Lease of his said Office to another for three years and then the Court was clear of opinion That the said Tyrrel should not have the Privilege for now during the Lease he is not Officer but the Lessee CCIX. Harris and the Lord Mountjoy 's Case Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas HArris affirmed a plaint of Debt in the Guildhall in London Dalton's Off. of Sher. 105. against the Lord Mountjoy and made an Attachment of the goods of the said Lord in the hands of Sir Drew Drewrie The Lord removed the matter into the Common-Pleas by a Writ of Privilege If now the said Lord shall find Bail was the question because that he is a Lord of the Parliament c. And the opinion of the whole Court was that he should find Bail for that is the course of the Court whosoever is party And by Anderson admitting the Law to be That the Body of a Lord of Parliament shall not be taken in Execution which I do not believe yet notwithstanding that Bail shall be found in such case For the condition of Bail doth consist upon two points First that he render his Body to Prison in Execution if Iudgment be given against him Secondly or to pay the condemnation And therefore if the Body of a Baron of Parliament is not subject to Execution yet the Bail shall stand for the second i. e. to pay the condemnation and all the Iustices were of clear opinion That for Execution upon a Statute-staple Merchant upon the Statute of Acton Burnel or upon the Statute of 23 H. 8. The Body of a Baron of Parliament shall be taken in Execution for by these Statutes such persons were not exempted CCX Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas NOTE It was said That the division of a great Meadow into many parcels by making of Ditches is not waste for the Meadow may be the better for it and it is for the profit and ease of the occupiers of it Hob. 234. And by Windham and Rhodes Iustices If a Termor converteth a Meadow into a Hop-garden the same is not waste for it is imployed to a greater profit and it may be a Meadow again Periam Iustice Although it be a greater profit yet it is also with greater labour and charges And the conversion of a Meadow into an Orchard is waste although it may be to the greater profit of the occupier CCXI. Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas IN a Replevin the Defendant avowed for damage feasant and upon issue joined it was found for the avowant and damages assessed and now issued a Retorno habendo upon which the Sheriff did retorn Averia elongata whereupon a Withernam was awarded and now came the Plaintiff and tendred in Court the damages assessed by the Iury and prayed stay of the Withernam and threw the Moneys into Court but the whole Court was clear against it for in this Case the Plaintiff ought to pay a Fine because he had essoigned the Cattel which is a contempt wherefore the Court assessed a Fine of three shillings four pence upon the Plaintiff and then the Plaintiff had his Prayer CCXII. Shrewsbury and the Inhabitants of the Hundred of Ashton Pasch 29 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas AN Action upon the Statute of Hue and Cry was brought by Shrewsbury against the Inhabitants of the Hundred of the three Hundreds de Ashton in the County of Bucks It was moved on the part of the Defendants That if upon such Hue and Cry the Inhabitants do their endeavours as much as in them is to follow and take the Malefactors and yet they cannot apprehend them that in reason they ought not to be charged by the said Statute But the whole Court was strongly against it And by Anderson The Inhabitants of the Hundred in which the Robbery was done are bound to apprehend the Felons or satisfie the party robbed And the party robbed is not bound to give notice to the Inhabitants nor to direct them which way the Felons took their flight but the Inhabitants are bound to follow the Felons without any such instruction and after the Enquest was taken and gave a Verdict in this manner That whereas the Plaintiff had declared That the Robbery was done in the Parish of D. in the Hundred aforesaid the Iury found that the place where the Robbery was done is a Lane within the said
land and that he and all those whose Estate c. have common of pasture in 16 acres of land called D. from the time that the corn was reaped untill it be sowed again and also common of pasture in lands called R. omni tempore anni as appendant to the said Messuage and land and that the Defendant had plowed the said lands and so disturbed him of his common and found for the Plaintiff and it was moved in stay of Iudgment That here it appeareth that the Plaintiff was seised in Fee and so he ought to have an Assize and not an action upon the Case but the exception was disallowed per Curiam See 2 H. 4. 11. 8 Eliz. Dyer 250. 11 H. 2. Action upon the Case 36. CCXXX Hore and Wridlesworth 's Case Mich. 32. Eliz. In the King 's Bench. HOre brought an Action of trespass against Wridlesworth Quare clausum domum suam fregit The Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new assignment i. a House called a Stable a Barn and another house called a Carthouse and Garnier and that was assigned for Error for that Assignment is not warranted by the Declaration Gawdy The same is good enough for Domus in the Declaration contains all things contained in the new Assignment But if the Declaration had been of a Close and the new Assignment of a Barn it had not been good Wray Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many buildings as Barns Stables c. and so was the opinion of the whole Court. CCXXXI Savacre 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. A Writ of Error Ante 4. was brought by Savacre and the Bishop of Gloucester M. 31 and 32 Eliz. upon a Iudgment given in a Quare Impedit for the Queen And Error assigned 1. An Attachment was awarded against the Defendant in the Quare Impedit retornable Quind Pasch at which Savacre appeared and cast an Essoin and notwithstanding that a Distringas was awarded against them both retorned Crast Trin. and the awarding the Distringas was erronious for the Essoin was as an appearance for to save c. and therefore against him no Distringas ought to have been awarded And upon alledging of Diminution the Record of the Essoin was certified for the same did not appear upon the Plea Roll. 2 The Record is Ipsi in Misericord and so both of the Defendants are amerced for the default of appearance Quind Pasch whereas Savacre was then Essoined and so no cause of amerciment of him Coke The original Writ was here sued Mic. 26 Eliz. retornable Quind Hillar and then both the Defendants made default for which an Attachment was awarded retornable 15 Pas and then Savacre appeared and Iudgment was given Quod ipsi sint in Misericord in which point the Error is assigned But I conceive that it is not Error for upon the Attachment the parties ought to put in sureties for their appearance and the said sureties took upon them that the Defendants and each of them should appear and if they or one of them maketh default the sureties should be amerced and so here this Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Misericord shall refer to the sureties not to the parties for the Defendants shall not be amerced untill the end of the suit and but once onely in one action which see Book of Entries 464. where there was but one Defendant and therefore If the amerciment shall refer to the Defendant then it should be Ideo ipse not ipsi c. and that is the reason wherefore neither the Queen nor an Infant shall find pledges for no amerciament shall be upon their default therefore in vain for them to find pledges c. And if the pledges be amerced where they ought not to be amerced by the Law yet the Defendant shall not have Error upon it for he is not the party grieved by that amerciament And upon this reason it is That in a Scire facias against the bail if erronious Iudgment be given against him the Defendant in the Action shall not have a Writ of Error The awarding of the Distress upon the Roll against both where the one of them onely makes default is not error especially as this case is for though that one of them was Essoined untill the day aforesaid yet at the said day they make default and so the Distress is well awarded against him and although that the Writ were ill awarded yet when they appear Cr. Trinit at the day of the retorn of the Distress all mean defaults in the Process are saved and so the misawarding of the Distress by appearance afterwards is supplyed As 39 E. 3. 7. The Law requires that in an action grounded upon the Statute of Praemunire 27 E. 3. the Defendant hath warning by two Months yet if the Defendant having not had such warning appeareth the Process is well enough So 9 E. 4. 18. Where upon any Process the Defendant appeareth although the day of appearance be not lawfull yet the parties shall be put to answer and see many cases there to the same purpose and such was the opinion of the Court in the principal Case And as to the second Error that the Iudgment Ideo ipsi in Miseric shall be referred to the sureties onely and not unto the party and that the Defendant shall be but once amerced in one action the same is true that he shall be but once amerced for one default but if many defaults be the Defendant shall be severally amerced for every default And it should be unreasonable that the sureties should be amerced and that the Defendant who is as principal should go free See the Book of Entries 193. Ipsi plegii sui in Misericordia c. CCXXXII Farnam 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench FArnam Schoolmaster and others were Indicted upon the Statute of 8 H. 6. for entring In domum Rectoriae de Putney ac in cert terras eidem domui part jacen in Putney c. Exception was taken to the Indictment because it recited the two parts of the Statute 1 Expulsion and Disseisin with Force 2 Holding out and there is not any offence in it contained as to one of them scil Holding out and although it was not necessary to recite the Statute yet the party meddles with it and doth not apply it to the special matter the same is naught See for that the Case between Strange and Partridge Plow Com. 2 The entry is supposed In domum certas terras eidem domui pertinen jacen in Putney which is incertain as to the lands and it is naught for the house also for it is not shewed in what Town the house is for this clause ac certas-terras eidem domui pertin jacen in Putney is a distinct clause by it self and refers onely to the lands and doth not extend to the house As to the first exception is was disallowed for it is not like unto Partridge's Case for there the
Statute and it was moved If it should not be a good Indictment for the assault so as he might be fined for it and by Sands Clerk of the Crown and the whole Court The Indictment is void for the whole for the conclusion of the Indictment is contra formam Statuti and there the Iury cannot enquire at the Common Law. CCXXXV Mead and Cheney 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench MEad brought an Action of Debt upon a Bond against Cheney Executor of one Skipwith and recovered and upon a Fieri facias the Sheriff did retorn Devastavit and it was moved to have an Elegit and the Iustices would advise of it and afterwards at another day a Precedent was shewed to the Court of 17 Eliz. and thereupon the Elegit was granted CCXXXVI Tompson and Trafford 's Case Trin. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 910. Poph. 8 9. IN an Ejectione firmae the Case was That the Warden and Fellows of New College in Oxford 8 Eliz. leased a Mansion house in the Burrough of Southwark to one Standish for 21 years and afterwards 25 Octob. 21 Eliz. they demised the same Mansion house to the said Standish for 21 years to commence the Michaelmas after And the Stat. of 14 Eliz. cap. 11. and 18 Eliz. cap. 11. were also found And if this second Lease shall be said a Lease in Reversion and so be void by the Statute of 14 Eliz. was the Question Foster moved That it is a Lease in Reversion for the first Lease doth continue untill Michaelmas and so was the opinion of the Iustices of Assise at the trial Towse contrary For when Standish accepteth the second Lease the same is presently a surrender of the former Lease for he giveth power unto the Lessor for to contract for the house presently and to that purpose he cited Corbet's Case 8 Eliz. Coke It is a surrender presently for you cannot apportion the Term. It was adjourned CCXXXVII Wood and Avery 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the King's-Bench DEBT upon a Bond by Wood against Avery the Condition was That where the Plaintiff had demised to the Defendant for term of years two Messuages c. If the Defendant at all times during the term shall maintain sustain and repair the said two Messuages with good and sufficient reparations that then c. And the Defendant pleaded That he had performed the Conditions in all but as to one Kitchin which was so ruinous at the time of the Demise that he could not maintain or repair and therefore he took it down and rebuilt it again in so short a time as he could possible in the same place so large and so sufficient in breadth length and heighth as the other Kitchin was and that the said Kitchin all times after the re-edifying of it he had sustained and maintained and well repaired and demanded Iudgment c. upon which Plea the Plaintiff did demurr in Law and by the Court the Plea were a good Plea if it were in an Action of Waste but here where he hath by his own Act tied himself to an inconvenience he ought at his perill to provide for it And here it was said That if the Condition be impossible the Bond is single contrary where a man is charged by an Act in Law. CCXXXVIII Bostwick and Bostwick 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas DOrothy Bostwick brought Dower against Bostwick an Infant Ante 59. and the Case was That the Husband of the Demandant was seised of certain Lands holden by Knight's-service of M. C. and by his last Will devised two parts of the Premisses to his Executors during the non-age of his heir and died his heir within age after whose death M. C. entred into the third part descended as Guardian in Knight's-service and the Executors into the other two parts upon which the Demandant brought one Writ of Dower against the Guardian to be endowed of the third part and another Writ of Dower against the heir within age in whom the Freehold of the two parts was The heir appearing by Attorney pleaded to issue which was found for the Demandant but the Iudgment was afterwards reversed because the heir being within age did not appear by Guardian but by Attorney for which cause she again brought a Writ of Dower against the heir and the Sheriff did retorn him summoned but the heir made default for which cause the Court was moved in the behalf of the Demandant to have the aid of the Court in this Case for if upon default of the Tenant a Grand Cape should issue forth and so a Recovery by default should follow the same would be Error which see 6 H. 8. Br. Liver Defaul 50. And therefore it was prayed that some person be appointed Guardian to the heir who may appear and plead for him for otherwise the Demandant is at great mischief for the Guardian now will not suffer the heir to appear in person And if the Widow now Demandant should stay for her Dower untill the heir should come of full age it would be a great mischief But by Walmesley Periam and Windham We cannot appoint a Guardian to the heir for his appearance here unless the heir be here in person in Court before us and he was appointed to be brought in person into Court. CCXXXIX Sir Anthony Denny 's Case Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common-Pleas SIR Anthony Denny seised in Fee of the Manor of Chessam extending into Chessam and in the Town of Hertford and also of other Lands in Hertford by his last Will devised the Manor of Chessam to Henry Denny his son and heir in tail and his Lands in Hertford to Edward Denny his younger son c. It was holden by Walmsley Periam and Windham absent Anderson That the younger son should have that part of the Manor of Chessam which lieth in the Town of Hertford Another point in the Case was That upon the death of Sir Anthony and Office was found without any mention of this Devise for which cause the Queen seised and leased all the Lands so devised to a stranger during the minority of the heir The heir comes of full age and hath Livery of the whole and without any express entry leaseth the Lands for years rendring Rent the Lessee entreth and payeth the Rent to the heir the heir dieth the Lessee assigns over his term and the Rent is yearly paid to the right heir of Sir Anthony And how Edward Denny entred and per Curiam his entry is lawfull for if the heir entreth in this Case and many descents follow yet the Devisee may enter at any time for his entry doth not make any abatement or wrong but may well stand with the Devise for if the Devise be waved or the Devise doth defer the execution of the Devisee 1 Inst 111. a. 240. b. 3 Cro. 145. Ow. 86 87. it is reason that the heir enter and take the profits untill the Devisee entreth But if
Covenant performed But if the words had been in consideration of the said Covenant to be performed then he had been bound to pay the money presently and he should have his remedy by Covenant CCLXV. Foster 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench NOTE It was said and holden by the whole Court in this Case That in Debt brought against Executors If the Defendants plead That the Testator was bound in a Recognizance in such a sum beyond which they have not any thing in their hands That it is a good Replication to say That the Recognizance was entred into for performance of Covenants contained in certain Indentures of which Covenants none are yet broken CCLXVI. Partridge 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench A Quo Warranto was brought against Partridge in which Case It was holden by all the Iustices That a man may prescribe to hold a Leet oftener than twice in one year and at other days than are set in the Statute of Magna Charta cap. 35. because the said Statute is in the Affirmative But Popham said That one cannot prescribe against a Statute See for the same Book of Entries 13 E. 3. Leet 12. and he said That the want of a Tunbrel and Pillory is a good cause of forfeiture of the Liberty which Coke denied And it was farther moved by Popham That if a general pardon be granted with general exceptions in it he that will take advantage of the same ought to plead it and shew that he is not any person excepted for otherwise the Iudges cannot allow him the benefit of it because they do not know if he be a person excepted or not But if there were special persons excepted by name and none other excepted but onely those persons there the party needs not to plead it for the Court may discern J. B. from J. D. See 8 E. 3. 7. and 26 H. 8. 7. If a man commits Felony and also Treason and afterwards comes a general pardon for the Felony but Treason is excepted and the party is arraigned of Felony by Coke he shall have the benefit of the pardon but Popham contrary for he is disabled by the Treason And it was agreed by the whole Court That in a Quo Warranto It is not sufficient for the Defendant to say That such a Subject hath lawfull interest to hold a Leet without making Title to himself for the Writ is Quo Warranto he claims c. And afterwards Iudgment was given for the Queen CCLXVII Wiggen and Arscot 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench IN a Prohibition the surmise was That the Exposition of Statutes doth belong unto the Queen's temporal Courts and Arscot had sued in the spiritual Court for Tithes whereas in truth for not reading of the Articles according to the Statute of 13 Eliz. he was deprived ipso facto and so he was not Parson for which cause Gawdy prayed a Prohibition for he said that the surmise was good and sufficient For the Question is Parson or not Parson and that shall be tried here by the Common Law. And I do not know that it hath ever been ruled here to the contrary before Clench Iustice It hath not been ruled to the contrary yet because great inconvenience may arise upon the admitting of it The Court hath taken order That no Prohibition shall be granted upon such a surmise without great probability of the truth of the surmise Where a Prohibition is awarded upon such a surmise the party needs not to prove his surmise according to the Statute of 2 E. 6. cap. 13. for this surmise is conceived upon a cause of later time since the said Statute and was not any cause to have a Prohibition at the time of the said Statute CCLXVIII Winter and Loveday 's Case Trin. 31 Eliz. In the King's-Bench Rot. 759. IN an Action of Covenant by Winter against Loveday It was found by special Verdict That Winter by Deed indented Mortgaged to Loveday a certain Lease upon condition to pay 400 l. to Loveday at a day certain at the porch of such a Church and upon such payment Winter to have back his Lease and Loveday covenanted That upon repayment of the money he should have back all his Evidences concerning the same and it was farther found That at the day of payment one Cornwallys sent unto Loveday to know if Loveday would receive the money which Winter owed to him at his house who answered that he was content and he came there and the money was told and delivered in bags to Loveday but afterwards some contention did arise between Winter and Loveday for certain Writings for which cause Cornwallys said That if they would not agree betwixt them That they should not have his money Whereupon Winter requested Cornwallis that he might have the money to carry to the said porch of the said Parish Church who was contented and there Loveday came to receive it and Winter would not pay it Tanfield moved That the same was a good payment to discharge the Mortgage for the money was told in the house of Cornwallis and Loveday there put it up into bags and the same is a good payment and receit Coke contrary Here is not any payment for it was not the money of Winter but of Cornwallis as appeareth by the words of Cornwallis scil If they could not agree they should not have his money Also Winter requested Cornwallis that he might have the money to carry to the porch of the Parish Church aforesaid by which it appeareth that it was not Winter's money And for that cause it was also the opinion of the Court that the same was not any sufficient tender See for this 1 Len. 34 35. the Case of Watkins and Astwick Hil. 28 Eliz. CCLXIX Ordway and Parrot 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench ORdway brought a Scire facias against Parrot and Hallsey who were Bail in a Bill of Debt for one Bennet and they pleaded That the said Bennet had payed the money recovered to the Plaintiff according to the condition of the Recognizance and it was the opinion of the whole Court that it was no Plea without alledging payment upon Record for if this should be suffered every man should be inforced twice to trie his Action wherefore the Plea was disallowed CCLXX. Coniers and Holland 's Case Trin. 30 Eliz. In the King's-Bench 3 Cro. 279. 2 Cro. 483. 620. IN an Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit by Coniers against Holland The Defendant pleaded That after the promise that the Plaintiff had discharged him of it And by Wray chief Iustice It is a good Plea and so it hath been often ruled and it was late the Case of the Lord chief Baron against whom in such an Action such a Plea was pleaded and he moved us to declare our opinions in Serjeant's-Inn and there by the greater opinion it was holden to be a good Plea for which cause The Court said to Buckley who
as taken for Rent arrere yet he cannot be said his Bailiff at the time of the distress which was granted by Rhodes Periam and Windham and as to that which hath been objected That if this traverse be allowed the meaning of the party shall be drawn in question i. e. the meaning of him who took the cattel the same is not any mischief for so it is in other cases as in the case of Recaption See 9 H. 6. 1. 45 E. 3 4. CCLXXV Humphreston 's Case Pasch 16 Eliz. In the King 's Bench. More 103. 1 Anders 40. Dyer 337. Owen 64. Sty 293. IN an Ejectione firmae It was found by special Verdict That W. Humphreston seised of the Manor of Humphreston suffered a common Recovery to be had thereof by Kinnersley and Fowk in the Writ of Entry in the Post to the intent that they should make an Estate to the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives the remainder Seniori puero dicti W. and to the heirs of the body dicti senioris pueri legitime procreat the remainder to the heirs of the body of the said W. Humphreston with divers remainders over And afterwards the Recoverers in December following by Indenture made an Estate accordingly and made Livery to W. Humphreston and his wife and afterwards in November 2 E. 6. by Indenture between the said W. Humphreston of the one party and Kinnersley on the other part The said W. Humphreston did covenant with the said Kinnersley to do all such lawfull and reasonable things for to assure the said lands unto the use of the said W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston lawfully begotten and to the heirs of the body of the said eldest child of the body of the said W. Humphreston and after to divers other uses over and afterwards Ter. Pasch 2 E. 6. W. Humphreston and Elionar his wife levyed a Fine of the said land to C. and B. in Fee to the use of the said Indenture Elionar died W. Humphreston married another wife and had issue a daughter named Frances and afterwards had issue a son named William and died William the son being of the age of six years entred into the lands and leased the same to the Plaintiff for years who being ejected by the Defendant brought the Ejectione firmae And this special Verdict And the points moved upon it were argued by Atkins Phetiplace Fenner Fleetwood Plowden and Bromley and afterwards this Case was argued by the Iustices And Gawdy puisne Iustice conceived That Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff First he conceived that this Lease for years made by the Infant without Deed and without Rent reserved is not void so as every stranger shall take advantage of it but onely voidable for an Infant may make a Bond and a Contract for his commodity and profit and the same shall bind him as for his meat and drink apparel c. But if upon such Lease he had reserved a small Rent as one peny where the land was worth 100 l. per ann such a Lease had been void and in our Case this Lease was made upon the land and was made for to try the title to it which is a good consideration and to the profit of the Infant and for his advancement and then the Lease is not void It hath been objected That here the Recovery being suffered to the intent that the Recoverers should make an Estate ut supra c. that the use shall rise presently upon the Recovery to him who suffered the Recovery and then the Recoverers could not make Livery unto him he held strongly That the use and the possession should be adjudged in the Recoverers untill they made the Estates c. for they otherwise could not make the Estates c. 2 Roll 789. and these words To the intent shall be construed that they shall have the lands untill they made the Estates c. And he held that the remainder limited Seniori puero where there is not any in rerum natura is good enough as a remainder limited to him who shall first come to Pauls And he conceived that the son should take this remainder and not the daughter and he conceived that the Estate tail here was not executed i. e. the second intail Divers Authors of Grammer have been produced to prove that Puer may be taken both ways Tam puer quam puella Desporterius Calapine Melancthon and the Grammer allowed but I conceive that Puer is a word proper for a Boy and Puella for a Maid and where we have proper words we ought not to iudge but according to them and because the word is doubtfull we ought to consider the cause upon the circumstances and therefore it is to be intended that W. Humphreston had a greater desire that his son should have his Inheritance than his daughter if there be not some special matter to prove that the intent of the father was for his daughter Southcote Iustice agreed with Gawdy in the first point and also that the Recoverers have convenient time to make the Estates and that they are to make the same without request for the benefit of the wife who is a stranger to it and is to have the lands for her ioynture and he cited the Case of the Abbat of York 44 E. 3. 8. and 9. where the difference is taken between a Feoffment made upon condition to re-enfeoff the Feoffor or to enfeoff a stranger And here in our Case the Feoffment is made in convenient time and here is sufficient consideration That the Recoverers shall be seised to their own uses untill c. And these words Roll supra Roll 407. Ea intentione shall be taken for a Condition And also that this remainder limited Seniori puero is good notwithstanding that there be not any Senior puer alive at the time And as to the word puer he held that it did extend to both Sexes indifferently and because it is doubtfull what Sex the father intended we are to construe the same upon the circumstances which appear upon the parts of the Indentures and here it appeareth upon the Indenture that he hath explained his mind scil Eldest child be it Male or Female As if I have two sons named J. and I devise my lands or limit a remainder to J. my son the Law shall construe this Devise to extend to my younger son for without devise or limitation my eldest son should have it But if J. S. hath two sons known by the names of A. and I Devise lands to A. son of J.S. there I ought to explain my meaning openly And he conceived That the Estate tail is executed defeasiable in W. Humphreston upon issue afterwards had and that the daughter should have the lands and not the son and if the Fine destroy the remainder in abeyance limited