the Office. Vide Stanford Prerogat 54 55. and Vide 20 E. 4. 11. A. seized of a Mannor with an Advowson appendant is attainted of Treason the Church void the King without any Office shall have the presentment But admitting that it is not in the King without Office yet the Pardon of 23 Eliz. doth not extend to it For the words of the Pardon are Treasons Felonies Offences Contempts Trespasses Entries Wrongs Deceits Misdemeanors Forfeitures Penalties and Sums of Moneys and if by any of these words the matter be helped is to be considered and if any thing shall help it it is the word Forfeiture But I conceive that the same doth not extend to this matter for although it be an ample word yet it shall be construed to extend beyond the words accompanied with it which concern only personal things as Contempts Wrongs Trespasses as the Statute of 13 Eliz. cap. 10. which is penned by general words as Colledges Deans and Chapters Parsons Vicars and others having Spiritual Promotions that Statute doth not extend by construction to Bishops and they have Spiritual Promotion yet the Statute shall be construed to extend to the Parties named and other Inferiour Orders and Degrees and shall not be extended higher So in the Commission of the Peace ad diversas Felonias alia Malafacta c. those general words do not extend to Treason c. Vide for the Residue of this Case Venable and Harris's Case which was the same Case and is Reported in Leonard 2 Part fol. 122. Placito 169. Pasc 33 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXIX Downhall and Catesoy's Case IN a Formedon by Downhall against Catesby 3 Leon. 267. the Parties were at Issue and it was tryed by Nisi prius It was moved in Bank because that some of the Iury did eat and drink before they gave their Verdict that the Court would not receive the Postea Curia that we cannot do for we not know whether your Information be true or not and this matter ought to be examined by the Iustices of Assize or Nisi prius before whom the Trial was and they are to certifie thereof and then we shall have good cause to stay the Entry of the Postea In that Case it was said If any of the Iurors eat and drink before their Verdict at their own Costs it doth not make the Verdict void but if at the Costs of the Plaintiff or Defendant it is otherwise CCXXX Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. THe Sheriff took an Obligation of a Prisoner bailable upon condition that he should personally appear in the Kings Bench c. It was holden a good Condition not against the Statute of 23 H. 6. So if the Condition had been that he should appear for to answer contrary that he shall appear and answer for in the principal Case the word personally is not of substance for although he appears by Attorney yet the Condition is well performed and Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff Anderson reclamante Vide 27 Eliz. B. R. Sedford and Cutts Case 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXXXI Haselwoods Case THe Case of Haselwood A seized of Land is indebted to the King by Obligation and enfeoffed B. of his Land And the Case of Fleetwood 15 Eliz. was vouched where it was holden That in purchase the debtor of the King was lyable But by Pigot who was of Counsel with Haselwood the Obligation in this Case was made before the Statute of 33 H. 8. or otherwise he should be charged 32 Eliz. CCXXXII Sir William Pelhams Case SIr William Pelham was Surveyor of the Ordinances and delivered of the Kings money to Painter Clerk of the Ordnance It was holden That for that money the Queen might have Account against Painter See this Case before Sect. 81. Trin. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXIV. Ognell and Vnderhills Case IN Replevin the Case was as appeared upon the pleading That Rob. Bouchier was seized of a certain Farm called Cruchefield Grange and leased the same to Sir William Raynsford for thirty years who dyed thereof possessed by reason of which the Interest thereof came to Raynsford as Executor of the said Sir William Raynsford who assigned the said Farm except a parcel of it called Hobbes to Sir Henry Bear for parcel of the term and afterwards assigned the said parcel called Hobbes for part of the term to Frekington and others and afterwards granted the residue of the said term not expired to the said Bear and Frekington and afterwards the said Rob. Bouchier granted a Rent-charge of 40 l. per annum percipiendum de omnibus terris renementis quibuscunque vocat the Grange of Cruchefield in the Parish of Stoneleigh in the County of Warwick nuper in tenura occupatione William Raynsford milit nunc in tenura occupatione Hen. Bear. Bouchier granted the reversion of Hobbes to Lewknor in Fee to whom Scarre releaseth all his right estate and demand in the said Land called Hobbes the Lease expired the rent behind Lewknor leased at will to R. the first Question was If the said Rent-charge shall be said issuing out of the said Lands called Hobbes for if c. then by that Release the rent is gone But the whole Court was clear of Opinion That the rent was not issuing out of Hobbes but out of the Lands then in the possession of Bear and not out of the Lands in the possession of Frekington Although it was objected by Walmesley Serjeant That the words in the Grant of the rent in tenura occupatione Bear shall be construed in the disjuncive quasi sive and then the Close called Hobbes although it was not in the Occupation yet it was in tenura of Bear. The Matter was at another day argued by Fenner Serjeant for the Plaintiff and he much relyed upon the word quibuscunque in the Grant of the Rent de omnibus terris quibuscunque commonly called Cruchefield Grange As if I grant to you all my Trees my Apple-trees shall not pass but if the Grant was omnes arbores meas quascunque they pass and that by the Emphasis of this word Quibuscunque So if I grant you Common for your Cattel in such a place none shall have Common but those which are Commonable shall have Common there contrary where the Grant is pro averiis quibuscunque And it was adjudged in the Chancery in the Case of the Bishop of Ely That where the said Bishop leased all the Demeasns of a Manor for years that by the said Lease the Park within the said Manor should not pass But perhaps if such a Lease had been Omnes singulas terras dominicales quascunque the Park would have passed And afterwards the Counsel of the Plaintiff seeing that the Court was of Opinion with the Defendant took Exception to the pleading The Defendant made Conusans ut Ballivus Administratoris of the Grantee of the Rent and doth not shew the Letters of Administration And as to
23 Eliz. is If any Person do any thing to move the People to Sedition the same is Felony but then it must be Sedition against the Queen and of that Opinion was the whole Court. Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLV Ratcliffe and Shirleys Case THe Lady Ratcliffe brought an Action upon the Case against Shirley for these words Words My Lady Ratcliffe is a beggerly Lady and giveth thread-bare Coats she bought Sheep and cosen'd men of their money and she is as very a Thief as he that robbeth by the High-way Vpon Not Guilty the Iury found that the Defendant spake these words She is a worse Thief than he that robbeth by the High-way It was holden that the words found by the Verdict were actionable as well as if the Defendant had called the Plaintiff Thief generally But it seemed to the Court that upon that Verdict the Plaintiff should not have Iudgment for it may be that the Defendant dixit utrumque at several times and so several Causes of Action And it is not like to the Case 3 Ma. 118. where part of the words is found quoad alia verba non dixit and so expresly acquit him of the remnant so it is not here for this Verdict doth not acquit him of the other words and for that Cause Iudgment was stayed Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCXLVI Herne and Crowes Case IN an Action upon the Case by Herne against Crowe and declared that whereas certain Irish Merchants had imported Furs here into England which were offered to be sold in London which Furs the Defendant desired to buy but because he was a Foreigner he could not buy them without peril of forfeiture and then the Plaintiff was in communication with the Merchants to have bought them that the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff promised to the Defendant that when he had bought the said Furs the Defendant should have such a quantity of the said Furs as he pleased upon equal price assumed and promised that he would speak no more with the said Merchants for the buying of the said Furs yet that notwithstanding he proceeded in the said bargain and offered to the said Merchants sixty pound more than any other by reason of which the Plaintiff could not have them for such reasonable price as he might have had them before It was holden by Wray Chief Iustice That the Declaration here was insufficient upon which the Defendant might have well demurred Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLVII. Bakers Case A Writ of Partition by Baker Heir of Gertrudi Marquess of Exeter who devised all his Lands to Blunt by which the third part descend to the Plaintiff Estrepement and prayed a Writ of Estrepement and it was the Opinion of the Court that the Writ is not to be granted for the Plaintiff may have a more proper remedy upon the Statute Cum duo vel tres and in a Writ of Partition no Land is demanded CCXLVIII Mich. Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Conditions A Man was bound in an Obligation that he should release all his right in Black Acre to the Obligor and in the performance of the said Condition he made such a Lease and delivered the same to C. to the use of the Obligor The Opinion of the whose Court was That the Condition was not performed because the Obligor had not the Lease in his own hands to plead but is put to his Writ of Derinue against C. which was not the intent of the Condition Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCXLIX Seaman and Brownings Case SEaman brought Debt in an Obligation against Broshnin and others Executors of one Marshall The Condition was That whereas the said Marshall had sold certain Lands to the Plaintiff If the Plaintiff peaceably and quietly enjoyed the said Lands against the said Marshall c and assigned the breach That the said Marshall had entred upon them and cut down five Elms there upon which they were at Issue And it was found that a Servant of the said Marshall had entred and cut them and that in the presence of the said Marshall his Master and by his commandment It was the Opinion of the Court that the Condition was broken and that the Master was the principal Trespasser Trin. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCL Babingtons Case HUmphrey Babington brought a Writ of Disceit and counted that T. S. was seized of Land and held the same of the Manor of Rodely which Manor is ancient Demeasn And that the said T. S. being so seized a Writ of Entre sur Disseisin was brought against him in which T. S. pleaded and lost and Iudgment was given against him Et quod ipse Humphridus extitit Dominus Manerii praedicti and concluded ad exhaeredationis ipsius Humphrâ—di periculum manifestum Exception was taken to the Count because the words are quod cum ipse existit Dominus Manerii praedicti where he ought to say further Amendment Et tempore Judicii praedicti existebat for if the Recovery was before he purchased the said Manor his Action doth not lye which Rhodes and Anderson concesserunt wherefore day was given to the Plaintiff to amend his Count. 32 Eliz. In the Exchequer CCLI Sir William Pelhams Case THe Case was A. Tenant for life the remainder in tall to B. c. A by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Messuage so conveyed to W. P. in fee who suffered a common recovery in which A. is vouched and so a common recovery had and executed and this was before the Statute of 14 Eliz. And if the recovery should bind B. and his remainder in tail was the question or if it be a forfeiture Altham argued that here is a forfeiture 1. It is to see if a common recovery suffered by Tenant for life which here is the Bargainee be a forfeiture or no by the common Law 1 Leon. 264. it s not forfeited 2 Leon. 60 65. if no Execution be sued upon the same Recovery 2. If it be executed then if he in the remainder may enter for the forfeiture When the Tenant for life bargains and sells the Messuage although upon it an estate in fee be limited yet nothing passeth from him but what he may lawfully pass and that was the estate for life of the Bargainor for such an estate only he might lawfully pass and here the Vendee is but Tenant for the life of another and when of his own assent he suffers a common recovery and that without right it is a forfeiture By matter in Fait a particular Tenant may commit a forfeiture as well as by matter of Record By matter in Fait he cannot commit a forfeiture if not thereby the reversion be not pulled out of him in the reversion As if a Lessee for 10 years make a Lease for 1000 years it is not a forfeiture for by that the reversion is not touched but if he by matter of Record do
Marchioness had devised all her Lands and had not left any thing to her Heir for which Case the Heir of the Marchioness entred into the third part of the Manor of Cauford of which the Lease upon which the Ejectione firmae was brought was made by the Lord Mountjoy to Insley and into the third part of the residue of the whole land now his meaning was That if the rent was not well passed by the name of the Manor then the same descended to the Heir which was sufficient for him For the Special Verdict found also That the rent was the third part of the value of the whole Land of the Marquess So that thereupon it may be collected That if a man hath three Manors some of them holden in Capite and of equal value and he deviseth two of them and suffereth the third to descend that the Devise is good for every part of the two Manors and the Heir shall not have the third part of each Manor Pasc 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXIII Spring and Lawsons Case ONe recovered in an Ejectione firmae and afterwards the Defendant made a new Lease for years and he who recovered ousted him and he brought an Ejectione firmae and the other pleaded the former Recovery It was holden a good bar by all the Iustices but Windham and Periam and by them the same is no Estoppel for the Conclusion shall be Iudgment if Action and not Iudgment if he shall be answered And although that it be an Action personal and in the nature of a Trespass yet the Iudgment is quod habeat possessionem termini sui during which Term the Iudgment is in force it is not reason that he should be ousted by him against whom he recovered for so Suits should be infinite and by Rhodes an Entry pendent the Writ shall abate it CLXIV Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. AN Action of Covenant was brought against one who had been his Apprentice The Defendant pleaded that he was within age The Plaintiff maintained his Action by the Custom of London where one by Covenant may bind himself within age Exception was taken to it that that was a Departure For 18 R. 2. an Infant brought an Action against his Guardian in Socage who pleaded that the Plaintiff was within age The Plaintiff did maintain his Declaration That by the Custom of such a place an Infant of 18 years might bring accompt against his Guardian in Soccage and it was there holden to be no departure Wray Chief Iustice was of Opinion that it was no departure for he said It should be frivolous to shew the whole matter in his Declaration viz. That he was an Infant and that by the Custom he might make a Covenant which should bind him But Quaere of the Matter and of his Opinion for that many learned Lawyers doubted much of it And vide the Case in 19 R. 2. of the Guardian in Soccage Mich. 29 30 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLXV Savage and Knights Case ERror was brought upon a Iudgment given in Leicester in Debt Tanfeild assigned Error because in that Suit there was not any Plaint for in all Inferior Courts the Plaint is as the Original at the Common Law and without it no Process can Issue forth and here upon this Record nothing is entred but only that the Defendant Summonitus fuit c. and because the first entry ought to be A. B. Queritur versus C. Clench a Plaint ought to be before any Process issueth and the Summons which is entred here is not a Plaint and for that Cause the Iudgment was reversed It was said That after the Defendant appeared a Plaint was entred But it was answered That that did not help the matter for there ought to be a Plaint out of which Process shall issue as in the Soveraign Courts out of the Original Writs 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVI Grindal Bishop of Yorks Case GRindal Archbishop of York made a Lease for one and twenty years another Lease for years of the same Land being in being not expired by four years and dyed and in time of vacation the Dean and Chapter confirmed it Clench It is a good confirmation A Bishop makes a Lease for years reserving the ancient rent but where it was payable at four Feasts of the year it is now reserved payable once in the year the same is within the Letter of the Statute but not within the intent the same Law if the Rent before was usually reserved to be paid upon the Land now it is reserved to be paid at any far remote place And he said that although his lease was in possession yet not to take effect before the four years of the former Lease are expired cannot be said an Estate within the Statute of 1 Eliz. whereby any Estate may pass before the commencement of it for he to whom it was made had but a right to have the Land and he could not surrender And he held that the second Lessee should pay the rent as well by the Contract as by the Estoppel Periam At the Common Law a Bishop with the Confirmation of the Dean and Chapter might have made a Feoffment Gift in Tail and a Lease for any Term of years and he spake much What shall be said the Possessions of a Bishop And therefore if a Bishop disseiseth another of certain Lands and makes a Lease thereof under the Seal of his Bishoprick it shall be now his Seal and it shall be his election in what capacity he will take and then this Land is to be reputed parcel of the Possession of his Bishoprick Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVII Hoo and Hoes Case JOhn Hoo brought a Writ of Intrusion against Richard Hoo depending which Writ the Demandant prayed Estrepement and had it and declared upon it scil That the Tenant after the Prohibition fecit Vastum Estrepementum in prosternendo c. To which the Tenant pleaded Not Guilty But the Plea was not allowed by the Court for there is no Issue in this Case but he might to plead Quod non fecit vastum c. after the Prohibition 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXVIII Clinton and Bridges Case DEbt The Condition was for performance of an Award which was to pay 10 l. to the Plaintiff and to do divers other things The Defendant pleaded Quod perimplevit Arbitrium and shewed how the Plaintiff assigned for a Breach that the Defendant had not paid the 10 l. The Defendant rejoyned that he rendred it to the Plaintiff and he refused it It was the Opinion of Dyer that the same is a Departure for in the Bar the Defendant pleads that he hath performed the Award and shews how and now in the Rejoynder a Tender and Refusal which is not a performance of the Award although it is not any Breach of it 29 Eliz. In the Exchequer CLXIX The Bishop of L's Case Tenures THe Case of the Bishop of
Common Pleas. LII Frice and Fosters Case IN Ejectione firmae the Plaintiff declared upon a Lease made 14 Jan. 30 Eliz. to have from the Feast of Christmas then last before for three years and upon the Evidence the Plaintiff shewed a Lease bearing date the 13 day of January the same year and it was found by Witnesses that the Lease was sealed and delivered upon the Land the 13 day of January Variance Whereupon Puckering and Cowper Serjeants moved on the part of the Defendant that for that variance between the Declaration and the Evidence of the Plaintiff that the Iury might be discharged Evidence good to maintain Issue But Anderson Chief Iustice said that the Evidence was good enough to maintain the Declaration for if the Lease was sealed and delivered the 13 of January it was then a Lease 14 January Quod caeteri Justiciarii concesserunt LIII Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Quare Impedit against the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield The Case was that A. seised of an Advowson in Fee Quare Impedit by Executors the Church voided the Bishop collated wrongfully A. dyed Collation it was holden that his Executors might have a Quare Impedit upon that disturbance and that by the equity of the Statute which gave an Action of Trespass to Executors of Goods carried away in the life of the Testator 4 E. 3. cap. 7. and that the Clerk should be removed at the suit of the Executors Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIV. Harvey and Thomas Case THe Case was that the Husband seised of Land in the right of his Wife made a Lease of it for years Fine by the Husband where avoids a Lease ê contra 1 Roll. tit Charge in Marg. 389. Plow Quaer 31. 261. ib. plus and afterwards he and his Wife conveyed the Land to a stranger by Fine the Husband died Wray Chief Iustice was of opinion that the Conusee should hold the Land discharged of the Lease Gawdy contrary In case of a Rent granted or a Recognizance acknowledged by the Husband the Conusee of the Fine shall avoid any of them But in this Case the Conusee meddles with the Land it self and an Estate in the Land is conveyed by the Husband which none but the Wife or her Heirs shall avoid and if the Wife after the death of her Husband accept the Rent upon such a Lease by that the Lease is confirmed Mich. 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench LV. Blaby and Estwicks Case IN Assumpsit It was moved in stay of Iudgment Assumpsit that one of the Defendants was dead after verdict but notwithstanding that Allegation Iudgment was given Attornment for the Court cannot take Notice of it judicially nor any of the Parties hath day in Court to plead it and therefore the Court is not to have regard to such Informations Wray It is not honourable for us upon such surmises which cannot be tryed to delay Iudgment and also the Party is not without remedy for he may have a Writ of Error 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVI Hore and Briddleworths Case HOre brought Trespass against Briddlesworth Quare clausum Domum suam fregit the Defendant pleaded and put the Plaintiff to a new Assignment i. e. 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 said it was 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 Chief Iustice Domus est nomen collectivum and contains many Buildings as Barns Stables c. And such was the Opinion of the Court. Mich 33 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVII Mans Case Prohibition MAn was sued before the Commissioners in Ecclesiastical Causes for an Incestuous Marriage viz. for marrying his Wives Sisters Daughter and although it be not expresly within the Levitical degrees yet because more farther degrees are prohibited the Archbishop of Canterbury and other the Commissioners gave Sentence against him Consultation upon which he sued a Prohibition upon the Stat. of 32 H. 8. c. 38. The Prohibition was general where it ought to be special that it be not within the Levitical degrees and therefore a Consultation was granted Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LVIII Doylies Case Appeals IN an Appeal de Roberie against Doyly It was agreed by the Iustices that the Party robbed shall have an Appeal of Robbery 20 years after the Robbery committed and shall not be bound to bring it within a year and a day as in the Case of an Appeal of Murder Vide contr 22 Ass 97. vide Stamford 62. Trin. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LIX Ruishbrook and Pusanies Case THe Plaintiff brought Trespass for pulling down his Hurdles in his Close The Defendant justified by reason that one Beddingfield was Lord of the Mannor of D. and that the said Beddingfield and all those whose Estate he had in the said Mannor had had a free course for their sheep in the place where c. And that the Tenant of the said Close could not there erect Hurdles without the leave of the Lord of the Mannor and that the said Beddingfield let to the Defendant the said Mannor and because the Plaintiff erected Hurdles without leave c. in the said Close he cast them down as it was lawful for him to do The Plaintiff replyed of his own wrong without cause c. It was holden by the Iustices to be an ill Plea Traverse for the Plaintiff ought to have traversed the Prescription 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LX. Par Marquess of Northamptons Case PAr Marquess of Northampton took to Wife the Lady Bourchier Heir of the Earl of Essex Leases by a Baron contrary to Act of Parliament void 3 Leon. 71. who levied a Fine of the Lands of the Lady sur Conusans de Droit c. with a Grant and Render to them for Life the remainder to the right Heirs of the body of the said Lady And afterwards by Act of Parliament â—5 H. 8. It was enacted That the said Lady should retain part of her Inheritance and dispose thereof as a Feme sole and that the said Marquess should have the residue and that he might lease the same by himself without the Wife for 21 years or lesser term yielding the ancient Rent being Land which had been usually demised c. The Marquess leased the same for 21 years and afterwards durante termino praedict he let the same Land to another for 21 years to begin after the determination of the former Lease It was moved that the last Lease was void for three Causes 1. Because the Marquess had but for Life and then it cannot be intended that the Statute would enable
King he granted the said Office of Marshal of the Kings Bench But 26 R. 2. both Offices were rejoyned by Parliament as they were in ancient time before and there was also shewed one Patent of 4 E. 4. and another of 19 H. 8. by which it appeared that the said inferiour Office had ever been part of the Grand Office Then it was moved That when the said Office is in the Kings hands and the King grants the said Vnder Office If the same was for ever severed from the Grand Office. Wray Chief Iustice It is a severance of it for the chief Office is an Office of Dignity which remains in the King but the under Office is an Office of Necessity and the King himself cannot execute it wherefore of necessity he ought to grant it Another matter was moved Recital in Grants of the King. If the Grant of the King to the Earl of Shrewsbury was good because in the Grant to Verney of the Vnder Office it is not recited according to the Statute of 6 H. 8. cap. 9. As 20 Ass 6. the King seized of the Honor of Pickering to which a Forrest was appendant The Bailywick of which Forrest he granted in Fee rendring Rent and afterwards he granted the Honor with the Appurtenances and afterwards the Baily committed a forfeiture and the same was found in Eyre for which the Office of Bailywick was forfeited the Grantee of the Honor seized it yet it was holden that the King should have the Rent And here in this Case the Earl of Shrewsbury shall have this Office in his power to grant it and so much the rather for that it was granted but for life Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXVI Conies Case Roll. Abrig 894. Sale of Goods by the Sheriff upon Execution where good where not IN Debt It was holden that if the Sheriff upon the Fieri facias makes sale of the Goods of the Party and afterwards doth not return his Writ yet the Sale is good The Case went further That upon the Fieri facias the Sheriff returned That he had seized Goods of the Party to such a value Sed non invenit Emptores and afterwards before sale of them he is discharged and afterwards a Distringas issued to the new Sheriff to cause the ancient Sheriff to sell the said Goods who did so It was holden that the said sale of them was void for the new Sheriff ought to have sold them Vide 34 H. 6. 36. A Distringas to the old Sheriff to sell and deliver the Goods to the new Sheriff Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXVII NOte by Dyer and Manwood A. leaseth to B for years Remainder where void the remainder to the right Heirs of the said B. and makes Livery That the remainder is void because there is not any person in esse who can take presently by the Livery and every Livery ought to have its operation presently But where a Lease is made to B. for life the remainder to his right Heirs there he hath a Fee executed and it shall not be in Abeyance for there he takes the Freehold by the Livery Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXVIII Hindes Case UPon an Habeas Corpus for one Hinde Habeas Corpus the Warden of the Fleet returned That Hinde was committed to the said Prison by the commandment of the Commissioners in Causes Ecclesiastical It was holden that the Warden in his return Cause of commitment where must be returned where not ought to certifie the cause for which he was committed and then upon the return the Court ought to examine the cause if it be sufficient or not But if one be committed to Prison by the commandment of the Queens Privy Council there the cause needs not to be shewed in the return because it may concern the state of the Realm which ought not to be published LXIX Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Dower the Demandant recovered by default Whereupon a Writ issued to Enquire if the Husband died seised and of the damages and the Sheriff took an Enquest of Office by which it was found that the Baron did not die seised prout eis constare poterit and that Inquisition was returned by the Sheriff and filed It was moved Return of the Sheriff where void That the said Inquisition and Office was not good for the Office ought to find expresly that the Husband died seised or not and not doubtfully as it is here prout eis constare poterit and for that cause the Award of the Court was That the return should be taken off the File because it was insufficient and a new Writ was awarded Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXX The Lord St. John and Sir John Grays Case Grants of Omnia bona by an Executor what passeth NOte by Dyer and Manwood upon an Evidence unto a Iury in Debt brought against the Defendant as Executor of his own wrong That if an Executor gives omnia bona sua the Goods which he hath as Executor shall not pass which vide 10 E. 4. 1. by Danby But the contrary of that was holden by Wray Chief Iustice of the Kings Bench And Plowden in the Case of Bracebridge 18 Eliz. and they said that the said Case of 10 E. 4. was not Law for by such grant made by Executors the Goods of the Testator should pass Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. LXXI Taylors Case Outlawry how to be avoided TAylor was Outlawed in debt where a Supersedeas of Record was delivered to the Sheriff before the awarding of the Exigent It was holden that the Party should avoid the same by Plea Then it was moved if the Plea should be pleaded by Attorney or in Person to which it was said by Manwood Iustice that where Matter in Fact is pleaded in avoiding of an Outlawry it ought to be pleaded in person but a matter of Record might be by Attorney And so it was said by Ford Prothonotary it was agreed in Sir Tho. Chamberlains Case 7 Eliz. and so it was agreed in the Principal Case 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. LXXII Bettuans Case IN Ejectione firmae The Case was A Fine was levied to Cook and three others and by an Indenture between the Parties to the Fine it was declared that the said Fine was levied ea intentione That the Conusees should make an Estate of the said Land to such a person which the Conusor should name and in the end of the said Indenture was a Proviso that the Conusees should not be seized to any other use but to that which was specified before and that the Conusees should not incumber the said Lands And the Opinion of all the Iustices of the Kings Bench was Fines levied to uses That upon the said Indenture the Conusees are seized to their own use until the Conusor hath made nomination and if he dieth without any nomination then the use
taken to it because in the Margent was written Middlesex and in the Indictment they both were named of London and afterwards in the proceedings the words are That Weshbourn and Brown entred in such manner in Com. praedict and that is incertain what County is intended Middlesex or London but the Exception was not allowed for London before is not expressed to be accounted but only implyed Another Exception was because they had not any addition but it was not allowed for it appeared to the Court. And after it was moved upon the Statute of 31 Eliz. cap. 11 that no Restitution upon such Indictment should be granted if â—he party indeed had had the Occupation or had been in quiet possession for three years next before the day of the Indictment and in the Case at Bar the Master hath been in possession by three years but the Parties indicted being his Servants had been with him but for one year it was thereby holden by the Court that upon the matter Restitution should not be granted for the possession of the Master in this Case takes away all Restitution and that by the Statute Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXIX Canons and Osborns Case A. Seized of a Rent in Fee granted the same by Fine to B. to the use of C. It was moved to whom the Ter-tenant should attorn And by Walmesly Periam and Windham there needs not any Attornment to the Conusee because all the right of the Rent is out of the Conusor Attornment and transferred to Cestuy que use instantly And Walmesly cited this Case to have been lately adjudged A Reversion in Fee upon a Lease for years was granted by Fine to A. to the use of B. B. without Attornment brought an Action of Waste and it was adjudged that the Action did well lye CXXX Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A Lease for years is made by Deed Indented rendring Rent and the Lessor covenants that the Lessee paying his Rent shall enjoy the Land demised for the whole term the Lessee did not pay the Rent and afterwards is ejected by a Title peramount By Walmesly and Windham Iustices that the Covenant is conditional and that the Lessee should not have advantage of it if he did not perform the Condition which is created by this word paying Periam Iustice was strongly to the contrary viz. that the word paying did not create a Condition Mich. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXI Thetford and Thetfords Case THe Case was an Action of Debt for Rent reserved upon a Lease for years the Plaintiff declared that Land was given to A. and B. his Wife Leases and the Heirs of their Bodies and that he and his Wife leased for years to the Defendant Baron and Feme and that the Donees were dead and that the Plaintiff as Heir c. for Rent behind c. And upon Non dimiserunt the Iury found that the Husband and Wife dimiserunt by Indenture and that after the Husband died and the Wife entred and within the term died Agreement Disagreement Now upon this matter Anderson Iustice conceived clearly that the Iury have found for the Defendant scil Non dimiserunt for it is now no Lease ab initio because the Plaintiff hath not declared upon a Deed and also the Wife by her disagreement to it and Occupation of the Land after the Death of her Husband had made it to be the Lease of her Husband only Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXII Acton and Pitchers Case IN a Writ of second Deliverance by Acton against Pitcher Leases within 32 H. 8. It was moved if a Lease made by a Prebendary were within the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 28. because the said Statute speaks of men seized in the right of their Churches and a Prebendary is seized in right of his Prebend and not in right of the Church But it is the Opinion of the whole Court that he was within the Equity of the Statute Trin. 32 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXIII Curtises Case IN a Writ of Error it was holden in the Common Pleas Amendment that if a Writ of Error be brought and delivered to the Chief Iustice de Communi Banco and allowed by him under his hand that afterwards the Record cannot be amended by Prothonotary Attorney or Clerk of the Court although that no Record be entred upon the Roll upon which the Writ of Error is brought Mich. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXIV Scots Case SCot brought a Formedon against A. who made default after default Resceit Anders 133. and now came B. and surmised to the Court that C. was seized of the Land in Demand and gave the same to A. in Tail the remainder to the said B. in Fee and prayed to be received and afterwards the Court upon advice ousted him of the Resceit 28 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CXXXV Terrets and the Hundred of c. Case IN an Action upon the Statute of Huy and Cry against the Hundred of c. the Defendants pleaded Not Guilty Action upon Statute of Huy and Cry. And in Evidence the Plaintiff to prove that he was robbed offered to the Iury his Oath in verifying his Declaration which Anderson and Periam utterly refused to accept of but Windham Iustice affirmed that such an Oath had been accepted of in the Case of one Harrington Oaths where the Plaintiff could not have other Evidence to prove the Cause in respect of secresie for those who have occasion to travel about their occasions would not acquaint another what monies or other things which they have in their journey and we see that the Law doth admit of the Oath of the Party in his own cause where the Oath shall make an end of the cause as in Debt where the Defendant wageth his Law. Periam That 's an ancient Law but we will not make new Presidents for if such an Oath be accepted of us in this case by the same reason in all causes where is secrecy and no external proof whereupon would follow great inconvenience and although such an Oath hath been accepted of and allowed here yet the same doth not move us and we do not see any 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 Receivor of the Lady Rich and had received the said mony for the use of the said Lady And Exception was taken to the same by Shuttleworth but it was not allowed of for the Plaintiff is accomptable to the Lady Rich for the said mony And it was agreed that if he which was robbed after he had made Huy and Cry doth not further pursue the Felons yet his Action lyeth Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVI Townsend and Pastors Case Feoffment by Coparceners Cestuy que uses NOte It was holden in the Common Pleas by
all the Iustices in the Case between Townsend and Pastor two Coparceners are in the use of a Manor after the Statute of 1 R. 3. the one of them enters and makes a Feoffment in Fee of the whole Manor that this Feoffment is not only of the moiety of the Manor whereof she might lawfully and by the said Statute make a Feoffment but also of another moiety by disseisin Mich. 26 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXVII Bulwer and Smiths Case BUlwer brought an Action upon the Case against Smith and declared how that H. H. had recovered against the Plaintiff in the Common Pleas 20 l. and before Execution died and that the Defendant knowing that at D. in the County of Norfolk malitiose deceptive machinans to Outlaw the Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment in the name of the said H.H. c. in performance of his said purpose at W. in the County of Middlesex took out a Capias ad satisfaciend in the name of the said H.H. against the now Plaintiff upon the said Iudgment directed to the Sheriff of London and Non est inventus being returned upon that took out an Exigent in the name of the said H.H. which Writ by the procurement of the Defendant was retorned and then the Plaintiff was Outlawed and afterwards the Defendant in the name of the said H. H. took out a Capias utlagatum against the Plaintiff directed to the Sheriff of Norfolk by force of which the Plaintiff was arrested and imprisoned for two months until he had gotten his Charter of Pardon by reason of which Outlawries the Plaintiff had forfeited all his Goods and Chattels and upon the said Declaration the Defendant did demur in Law and the principal cause of the demurrer was because that the Action might have been laid in Middlesex where the wrong began scil the Capias ad satisfaciend the Outlawry for this imagination at D. in the County of Norfolk set forth in the Declaration cannot give to the Plaintiff this Action But if divers conspire in one County for to indite one and they put the same in Execution in another County the Party aggrieved may lay his Action in which of the said two Counties he pleaseth 22 E. 4. 14. for a Conspiracy is more notorious than an imagination imaginatio est unius conspiratio plurimorum And in this Case the Deliverance of the Capias at D. in Norfolk is but accessary and the suing of the Process aforesaid at Westminster is the principal upon the part of the Plaintiff it was said that such an action might be laid in the County where the Plaintiff was wronged and the Plaintiff is not tied to lay his Action in the County where the original matter which was but conveyance to the said wrong was done A imprisoned upon a Capias ad satisfaciend in Middlesex escapes into Surrey the Action upon the escape shall be laid in Surrey Reteiner of a Servant in one County who departs in another County the Master shall lay his Action in which of the said Counties he will 15 E. 4. 18 19. 41 E. 3. 1. A Writ of Disceit was brought in the County of York and the Case was that in a Praecipe quod reddat of Land the Tenant shewed forth a Protection at Westminster the which was allowed for a year and within the year the Tenant stayed in the County of York upon his own occasions the said Writ of Disceit was holden to be well laid for there the wrong began notwithstanding that the Original i. e. the casting of the Protection was in Middlesex for the disceit is that the Tenant contrary to the pretence of the Protection continued at York for the Protection was quia Moraturus And always where the cause of the Action consists of two things whereof the one is matter of Record and the other is matter of Fact there the Action shall be laid in such County where the matter in fact may be more properly tried Vide 11 R. 2. Fitz. Action sur le Case 36 Br. Lieu 84. in the principal Case at Bar the Court was of Opinion that the Action was well brought in the County of Norfolk Another Exception was taken to the Declaration because the Plaintiff hath there set forth whereas his true name is John Bulwer by which name he now sues he was sued and outlawed by the name of John Buller and then the now Plaintiff upon that matter was never sued nor outlawed and then is not grieved by the Defendant but John Buller for here in his Declaration there is not any averment that John Bulwer and John Buller are one and the same and not divers Persons But the Exception was disallowed for the whole Court held that for As much as the Plaintiff hath declared that he by the name of John Buller was sued and Outlawed the same is an averment in Law c. and amounts to so much Another matter was objected because it appeareth in the Declaration that H. H. was dead before this Process was sued and then the Outlawry was erronious and so the Plaintiff is not at any mischief but that he may reverse the Outlawry by Error as in Conspiracy the Defendant pleads that the Indictment upon which the Plaintiff is arraigned is vitious and erroneous and so his life was never in jeopardy But as to that it was said by the Court that the erronious proceedings of the Defendant shall not give advantage to himself but because the Plaintiff was vexed by colour and reason of the Outlawry and put to his Writ of Error which cannot recompence the loss and damage by him sustained by reason of the Outlawry aforesaid it is reason that the Plaintiff have his Action wherefore Wray Chief Iustice ex assensu Sociorum gave Iudgment for the Plaintiff CXXXVIII Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Upon the Statute of 23 Eliz. of Recusancy CErtain Persons were indicted upon the Statute 23 Eliz. for refusing to come to the Church and upon the same were Outlawed and now they came to the Kings Bench ready to make their submission and to conform themselves according to the said Statute and thereupon they prayed to be discharged But the Court would not receive such Submission but advised them to purchase their Pardon for the Outlawry and then to tender their Submission which they did accordingly and at another day came again and shewed to the Court their Pardon whereupon the Clerk of the Court asked them if they would conform themselves according to the said Statute who said they would wherefore they were discharged Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CXXXIX Christian and Adams Case Action for words AN Action upon the Case was brought for speaking these scandalous words of the Plaintiff scil the Plaintiff did conspire the death of the Defendant it was found for the Plaintiff and moved in Arrest of Iudgment that upon the matter the Action did not lye for the bare conspiring of the death of a man
Assumpsit MEgot brought an Action upon the Case against Broughton and Davy upon Assumpsit and it was found by Nisi Prius for the Plaintiff and afterwards before the day in Bank Broughton dyed and after Iudgment given Davy the other Defendant brought a Writ of Error in the said Court scil in the Kings Bench where Iudgment was given and assigned an Error in fact scil the death of Broughton depending the Writ vide 2 R. 3. 21. and this Case is not like to Trespass for Trespass done by many are several Trespasses but every Assumpsit is joynt If the Court may reverse their own Judgment and if the Court upon this matter might reverse their own Iudgment was the Question the Case was not resolved but adjourned CLII. Trin. 31 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IT was found by Office that J. S. held by the Queen and dyed without Heir whereas in truth he had an Heir scil A. S. who leased the Lands for an hundred years and afterwards traversed the Office Office trove and had an Ouster le mayne le Roy. Now the matter was moved in the Common Pleas by Fenner in behalf of the Sheriffs of London before whom the matter depended to whom it was said by Anderson Chief Iustice Conveyance by the Heir upon Entrusion That where the King is entituled by an Office to a Chattel as to a wardship c. there if the Heir without any intrusion bargain and sell levy a Fine or lease for years during the possession of the King it is void against the King but shall bind the Heir but where the King is intituled to the Fee-simple as in this Case such a Conveyance is meerly void Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIII Samuel Starkeys Case HOmine replegiando by Samuel Starkey to the Sheriffs of London Who returned that the said Starkey was indicted to be de mala fama deceptione Domini Regis with divers other general words and namely that he had deceived J. S. a Clothier and that he was a common Cozener and thereof being found guilty Iudgment was given by the Mayor and Recorder That he should be disfranchized of his Freedom and should be fined and imprisoned for a year and further said that he had not paid his Fine nor the year expired Cook Such Return hath not been seen and it is directly against the Statute of Magna Charta Wray Chief Iustice gave a Rule that the Sheriffs should make their Return at their perils before such a day Hil. 31 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CLIV. Bushy and Milfeilds Case IN Error brought by Bushy and Milfeild It was assigned for Error that where in the first Action the Iury gave four pence Costs and the Court gave de incremento three and twenty shillings that in the Iudgment the four pence was omitted Error It was the Opinion of the Court That for that Cause the Iudgment should be reversed although it be for the advantage of the Party so where the Iudgment is quod sit in misericordia where it ought to be Capiatur Hil. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLV Bingham and Squires Case BIngham brought Debt upon an Obligation against Squire Obligation 3 Leon. 151. The Condition was If Squire did procure a Grant of the next Avoidance of the Archdeaconry of Stafford to be made to the said Bingham so as the said Bingham at the said next Avoidance may present that then c. The Case was That afterwards by the means and endeavour of Squire the Grant of the next Avoidance was made to Bingham but before the next Avoidance the present Archdeacon was created a Bishop so as the presentment of that Avoidance belonged to the Queen It was adjudged in this Case that the Condition was not performed and that by reason of these words scil So that Bingham may present And afterwards Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff should recover Hil. 26 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLVI Mansors Case A. Man bound himself in an Obligation to make an Assurance of Lands the first day of Jan. and the last day of December he to whom the Assurance was to be made scil the Obligee the said last day before Sun-setting came to the Obligor with a Deed ready to be sealed and prayed him to seal it who said to him that he was a man unlearned and said he would shew the same to his Counsel and then he would seal it And if the Obligation was forfeited or not because he did not seal it presently was the question And Fenner argued that it was not for when a thing is to be done upon request then he who makes the request ought to give sufficient and convenient time to perform the Condition I agree That where the Condition is absolute there if the Condition be not performed he shall not be excused by the default of another As if a man be bounden to marry A.S. and she will not marry him or to enfeoff J. S. and he refuseth as 3 H. 6. is the Obligation is forfeited Yet in these Cases if the Obligee himself be the cause that J. S. will not take the Feoffment or he will not marry A. S. the Obligation is not forfeited So in our Case for by his late request it is impossible for me to perform the condition for before my Counsel shall have perused it the time will be past If a man be bound to enfeoff one of Lands in Barwick request ought to be made so long time before that after that he may go to Barwick So if one be bounden to pay 1000 l. to J.S. he ought to make his Tender so long time before the last instant of the last day that the mony may conveniently be told This Case was in question A man made a Feoffment of the Manor of D. with the Appurtenances to which an Advowson was appendant and covenanted that the Manor upon request should be discharged of all manner of Incumbrances and before that the Feoffor had granted the next Avoidance to J. S. the Incumbent died the Clark of the Grantee was instituted and inducted the Feoffee requested the Feoffor to discharge the Incumbrance The opinion of many Sages of the Law was that he had not made his request within convenient time So if a man be bounden to infeoff the Obligee to have and to hold to him and his Heirs as long as J. S. shall have Issue of his Body If the Obligee demand Assurance after the death of J. S. without Issue yet the Obligation is not forfeited In 22 E. 4. if Lessee for the life of another continues possession for two or three weeks after the death of Cestuy que use where he could not have more speedy notice of his death he shall not be a Trespassor In 15 Eliz it was holden in Wottons Case That where he was bound to make a Feoffment to J. B. and J. B. came to him in Westminster Hall and tendred to him a Writing
on the other side That the Estate of the Alien is so weak that a confirmation cannot enure upon it for an Alien cannot take but to the use of the King and cannot be infeoffed to anothers use and if he be such use is void For there is not a sufficient seisin in an Alien to carry an use And it hath been adjudged on Forset Case Where an Alien and the said Forset were Ioynt-Purchasers and the Alien dyed that Forset should not have the whole by Survivour but that upon Office found the Queen should have the moiety Vide 11 Eliz. Dyer 283. Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVI Jermine and Arscots Case THe Case between Jermine and Arscot was this A seized of Lands in Fee had Issue six Sons and one Daughter and devised the Manor of c. parcel of his said Lands to J. S. for ninety years if the said J. S. and G. his Wife or any of them should so long live the remainder to P. his eldest Son and the Heirs males of his Body the remainder to his other Sons in tail the remainder to his Daughter Provided That if the said P. his Son or any of the Sons of the Devisor or any of the heirs males of their bodies should endeavour by any Act or Thing to alien bargain or discontinue c. that then after such attempt or endeavour and before such Bargain and Sale c. were executed that the estate of such Person attempting should cease as if he were naturally dead and that then the premises should remain and come to such person to whom the same ought to come remain or be by the intent and meaning of his Will and died P. levied a Fine of the Manor he in the next remainder entred and claimed the Land by force of the Devise This Case was this Term argued by Walmesly Serjeant that an Estate tail cannot cease for it is an Estate of Inheritance and here is not any limitation for the Estate tail by the meaning of the Devisor shall remain revivable upon the death of the Offender but a Limitation determines the Estate utterly which is not here but here it appeareth as well by the meaning of the Devisor as by the words of the Devise that the Estate tail upon such act should be suspended and it cannot be resembled to the Case cited on the other side 22 E. 3. A Rent granted to one in Fee and that it shall cease during the Nonage of every Heir the Rent is but suspended between the Parties and Privies to the Gift as in the Case of Littleton of Re-entry and Retainer quousque but that a Stranger should re-enter and retain quousque that cannot be And in the Case of Scholastica reported by Plowden the Estate tail by such Offence is determined by the limitation But in our Case by the meaning of the Devisor only suspended so our Case is not like to that Case Shuttleworth to the contrary The purpose of the Devisor appeareth to be the continuance of the Land in the name and Family of the Caries and as to the difference of ceasing and suspending of an Estate tail the same is not to the purpose for the Tenant in tail himself may suspend his Estate tail therefore à fortiori the Donor upon the Creation of the Estate tail As by Littleton Tenant in Tail grants totum statum suum the Estate tail is thereby suspended and by Anderson if in such a Case after such a grant Tenant in tail levy a Fine in our Case If Tenant in tail offend and the party to whom the next interest is limited enters and after the Offender levies a Fine to a Stranger there although his Estate was determined by the offence yet the Estate tail is bound by the Fine Ad quod caeteri Justiciarii murmurabant Tenant in tail hath Issue two Sons the eldest in the life of his Father levieth a Fine and after the Father dieth the Estate tail is bound contrary if the Father had survived his eldest Son And afterwards in the end of this Term Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff for by the Will here is a good limitation and an estate to cease upon an act and upon another contingent to be revived is good enough Vide 30 E. 3. 7. A Lease for life rendring rent and if the rent he behind that the Lessor shall return quousque agreement be made so as a Freehold may cease and rise again according as the same is limited And all this was agreed by Rhodes Periam and Windham and afterwards Walmsley for the Plaintiff took an Exception to the Bar for that the Defendant pleaded Quod Petrus Cary tempore levationis finis praedict non habet exitum and doth not say that tempore quo ipse Henricus clamabat reversionem praedict the said Peter had not Issue for he said if Peter had Issue when Henry claimed the Reversion nothing had vested on him by the said claim But all the Court besides Anderson said that needed not be but if the matter had been such the same should come on the part of the Plaintiff Also they said That the Estate was vested in Henry without claim and although after the Offence committed and before claim Peter have Issue yet Henry should retain the Land during the life of the Offender against such Issue born after the Fine levied for by the Fine levied the Reversion vested in Henry without any claim by force of the said limitation CLXXVII Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. Alien suffers a common Recovery 9 Co. 141. LAnd was given to an Alien in tail the Remainder over to another in Fee the Alien suffered a common Recovery and died without Issue All this matter was found by Office. It was moved That this Office should have return so as upon the matter the Alien was not Tenant of the Land at the time of the Recovery suffered But the whole Court held the contrary and that the Recovery was good and should bind him in the Remainder Mich. 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXVIII Seixtbark and Percies Case EJectione firmae of Lands in Knolton and Woodland the Parties were at Issue and the Venire facias was of Knolton only and it was found for the Plaintiff It was shewed in stay of Iudgment that the Venire facias was not well awarded for it ought to have been De vicineto de Knolton Woodland which was granted by the Court And that that defect was not relieved by any Statute for it is a Mis-trial and for that cause Iudgment was stayed and a Venire facias de novo granted 30 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CLXXIX The Provost of Queens Colledge in Oxfords Case THe Provost Fellows and Scholars of Queens Colledge in Oxford are Guardians of the Hospital and Meason de Dieu in Southampton and they make a Lease of Lands parcel of the Possession of the said Hospital to one Hagel for term of years by the name of
the Covenant shall enure to defeat and determine the Warranty And afterward Iudgment was given against the Plaintiff CCLXXIII Sir Francis Englefields Case Vide this Case Reported by Cook in Rep. 7. and by Popham 18. THe Case to recite at large was this Sir Francis Englefield Kt. being seized in Fee of the Manor of Englefield in the County of Berks and of divers other Lands in the first year of Queen Eliz. departed out of the Realm by Licence of the Queen for a time and remained out of the Realm in the parts beyond the Seas above the time of his Licence whereby the Queen by her Warranty under her Privy Seal required him to return upon which he was warned but did not come whereupon the Queen seized his Lands for his contempt After which the Statute of Fugitives was made 13 Eliz. upon which by Commissions found upon this Statute all his Lands were newly seized and afterwards 17 Eliz. by Indenture made between him and his Nephew and Sealed by the said Sir Francis at Rome the said Sir Francis covenanted with his said Nephew upon consideration of Advancement of his Nephew and after consideration to raise an use that he and his Heirs and all others seized of the said Manor c. shall hereafter stand and be seized of them to the use of himself for the term of his life without impeachment of Waste and afterwards to the use of his Nephew and of the Heirs Males of his Body and for default of such Issue to the use of the right Heirs and Assigns of the Nephew for ever with a Proviso that if the said Sir Francis shall have any Issue Male of his Body that then all the said Vses and Limitations shall be void and that the said Manors c. shall be as before Afterwards the said Sir Francis was attainted of Treason supposed to be committed by him 18 Eliz. at L. in partibus transmarinis and the Attainder was first by Outlary and afterwards by Act of Parliament 28 Eliz. by which the Forfeiture of the said Condition was given to the Queen and at the same Parliament it was Enacted That all and every Person and Persons which had or claimed to have any Estate of Inheritance Lease or Rent they not entred of Record or certified into the Court of Exchequer of into or out of any Manors Lands c. by or under any Grant Assurance or Conveyance whatsoever had or made at any time after the beginning of her Majesty by any persons attainted of any Treasons mentioned in the said Act after the 8 day of Feb. 18 Eliz. or within two years next ensuing the last day of the Session of the said Parliament shall openly shew in the Court of the said Exchequer or cause to be openly shewn the same his or their Grant Conveyance or Assurance and there in the Term time in open Court the same shall offer and Exhibit upon his or their Oath affirming that they have not the same nor can come by it or that it was never put in writing then the Effect thereof to be entred and inrolled of Record or else every such Assurance should be void and of none Effect to all intents and purposes saving to every person and persons other than the parties and privies to such Conveyance and such as shall not Exhibit the said Conveyance according to the true meaning of this Act all such rights c. Whereupon the said Francis the Nephew the 20 day of November 30 Eliz. in his own person affirmed upon his Oath that he had not the said Conveyance nor knew not how to come by it but delivered the Effect of the Assurance omitting the time when it was made otherwise than that it was made after the beginning of the Queens Reign and before the Treason committed by Sir Francis and before the Statute of 13 Eliz. against Fugitives and omitting also the last clause of the tender of the King and this he offered openly in the Court of the Exchequer the same day After which the Queen being moved with the said Condition made a Warrant by Letters Patents under the Great Seal dated 17 Martii 13 Eliz. to Rich. Broughton and Henry Bourcher Esquires for her and in her place and stead to deliver or tender to the said Francis the Nephew a Ring of Gold to the intent to make void the uses and limitations limited by the said Indenture and to return their proceedings upon it into the Court of Exchequer whereupon they made a tender of a Ring of Gold to the said Francis the Nephew the 18 day of November 31 Eliz. which he refused to receive And the two years after the said Session of Parliament was the 13 day of March 31 Eliz. and the said Broughton and Bourcher returned all this that they had done as before with their Commission out of the Exchequer And this Case being a great case and consisting of many doubts and questions was often argued And this Term scil 33 Eliz. It was argued by Moor of Counsel on the part of Francis Englefield and he said when Sir Francis Englefield covenanted to stand seized to the use of himself for life c. this was not any new use but part of the ancient use which was in Sir Francis before for there was no Consideration to raise a new use to himself for a Consideration is a cause or an occasion meritorial requiring a mutual recompence in fait or in Law Dyer 16 Eliz 33. b. mutual 1. of each part and here this ancient use remaineth For Sir Francis cannot simul semel agree and suffer and here is a bare Covenant without any Consideration on the part of Sir Francis which see Dr. and Student 100. cited by Br. Feoffments to Uses 46. A man cannot limit an use to himself to be a new use upon an Estate executed as upon a Feoffment but it shall be the ancient use much less upon a Covenant And that was Milfords Case Pasch 31 Eliz. Rot. 154 in the Kings Bench where an use limited to the right Heirs of the Feoffor was holden the ancient use quod vide also in the case of the Earl of Bedford and there is no difference between our case and the said cases unless in the said cases the use is limited in the end and in our case in the beginning of the Conveyance But perhaps it will be Objected That the particular Estate shall be good for necessity for to support the Estate limited in the Remainder which is limited upon good consideration for otherwise the Remainder shall be distrained That is not any reason for that conceit in Bayntons case in Plow Com. 307. 8 Eliz. hath been over-voted to be no Law in the case of the Lord Paget in this Court very lately And he said That the condition conceived in the Proviso is not given to the King. By the Common Law in case of Escheat the party comes in the Post but a Condition runs in privity And although
as the Statute of 11 H. 8. hath ordained in case of a Lease for years where the Lessor his Heirs or Assigns have suffered the recovery and not otherwise And afterwards he argued very much upon the reputation and dignity of common Recoveries that they are the strongest and most effectual Assurances in the Law and therefore they ought to be countenanced rather by the Iudges than in any part diminished or disabled and we ought to consider of them Non ex rigore juris rigida disquisitione but according to the common use and practice what is the ground and foundation of these Recoveries And so Iudges have used heretofore to examine Matters which peradventure according to the strict Rules of the Common Law drew them away But they perceiving that a dangerous Consequence thereby would follow to an infinite number of the Kings Subjects the Law having been otherwise practised before have framed their Iudgments not according to the exact Rules of Law but to avoid the Inconvenience aforesaid according to the common and received practice c. Nam communis Error facit jus and to that purpose he cited a Case very lately adjudged in B.R. viz. A Writ of Error was brought in B. R. upon a Iudgment given in Wales and the Error was in this That the Writ was returnable coâ—am Justiciariis Domini Regis Comitatus c. where it should have been coram Justiciariis Magnae Sessionis Dominae Reginae c and such are the words of the Statute of 34 H. 8. cap 26. the which Sessions shall be called the Kings great Sessions in Wales and notwithstanding that the Iustices in strict consideration of the Law thought the same to be Error for the said Statute had given to the said Court such name yet because it was well known to the Iustices That that was the common course in the said Court ever after the erection thereof And also if the said Iudgment should be reversed for that cause many Iudgments should be also reversed which should be a great disquietness and vexation to the whole Country there they in their discretion thought it convenient to qualifie the Law in that point and so to avoid the said Inconvenience affirmed the said Iudgment So in the case at Bar If this Rent-charge should stand against the said recovery no inconvenience should be so firm but it should be impeached no Title so clear but should be incumbred therefore for the common repulse of many the strict rules of the Law ought to yield to common practice for the avoiding of a common inconvenience it hath been holden for Law when Tenant in tail maketh a feoffment in fee the Feoffee is impleaded voucheth the Tenant in tail now forasmuch as he cometh in as Vouchee it is now said that he cometh in of all his estates I do not see any reason for that but common allowance practice and experience c. It was adjourned c. Mich. 27 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. CCLXIV Baxter and Bartlets Case IN Assise of Freshforce by Baxter against Bartlet upon Null tort Null Disseisin pleaded it was found for the Plaintiff who had Iudgment upon which the Tenant brought Error for that the Assize have generally found the Disseisin but have not enquired of the force And after many motions the Iudgment was affirmed CCLXV. Sir Henry Gilfords Case IT was found upon a Special Verdict That Henry Gilford Citizen and Freeman of London 7 Feb. 6 E. 2. seized of a Capital Messuage Devised the same by these words Lego volo Quod omnes Domus reddit ' quae habeo in Villa de London ordinentur assignentur per Executores meos ad sustentationem trium Capellanorum qui pro vita celebrabunt in Ecclesia Sancti Pauli London Et ad hoc faciend ' Do eis plenam potestatem and made his Executors William Staunton and others and dyed the Will was Proved and Inrolled according to the Custom Afterwards the Executors by their Deed bearing date 7 E. 2 granted and assigned the said Capital Messuage and his other Tenements in London to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls in London and their Successors Habend ' tenend ' in forma sequenti Haec est finalis Concordia c. That the Dean and Chapter shall have the said Lands for ever to find yearly a competent Sustenance of 10 Marks to a Priest to celebrate Mass for the said Henry Gilford and all Souls and that the said Priest at all hours of Divine obsequies should give his attendance in the said Church and faithfully do his Office to say Mass and Prayers according to the Degrees and Customs of the said Church and that the Dean and Chapter should find Bread and Wine and Massing-cloaths and Torch-light and granted the residue of the profits of the Lands to celebrate an yearly Obit and for the perpetual security of the said Chauntry the said Executors granted to the Mayor and Commonalty of London 20 s yearly rent for ever Ita quod the Mayor and Chamberlain for the time being presented a meet and convenient Chaplain to the said Chauntry to the said Dean and Chapter within 15 days after the Avoidance the which Chaplain the Dean and Chapâ—er are bound to admit And the form of the said Conveyance was such We the Executors H. G. do grant and assign to the Dean and Chapter of Pauls all the Lands Tenements and Rents aforesaid to have and to hold to them and their Successors for the sustentation of a Chaplain perpetual and his Clark for the said H. G. and all Souls receiving from the said Dean and Chapter 10 Marks for the celebrating of the said Obit of the said H. G. And that the Grant and Assignment of the said 20 s. to the Commonalty in the relief of the said Chauntry is such scil To have and receive of one Shop in Cheap maintenance of the said Chauntry aforesaid And that the said Dean and Chapter oblige themselves and their Successors and the Church to pay the same to the said Priest and Clark and that it shall be lawful for the Mayor and Commonalty aforesaid to distrain for the said Rents By virtue of which Will and Indenture the Dean and Chapter enter and were thereof seized in their demesne c. and that at all times after they had taken the profits thereof until 2 E. 6. and that the Dean and Chapter of the profits of the premises had yearly paid 10 Marks for the stipend of the said Priest And further the 27 July 16 H. 8. the Dean and Chapter demised the same to F. Cole for 40 years and that afterwards 15 Maij 36 H. 8. the said Dean and Chapter leased the same to Nicholas Wilford for 50 years rendring 9 l. Rent with Clause of Distress if the Rent was behind by half a year being demanded the Lease should be void which N. W. 1 E. 6. devised the same to his Wife who devised the same to Tho. Wilford the
Bayliff of his Lord could not do better than admonish the said Bayliff of his duty for it concerned the Honour of his Master and also his Inheritance in the said Liberty But if the said Townsend had been a meer stranger to the said Earl so as no such privity had been betwixt them the same had been clearly Maintenance in Townsend as it was lately adjudged in that Court in the case of one Gifford where the parties being at Issue and a Venire Facias 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 do in that cause according to his Conscience and the same was adjudged Maintenance And afterwards upon full hearing of the cause the said Townsend by the Sentence of the Court was acquitted of any Maintenance with great allowance and approbation of many Lords of the Counsel there present Bromley Cancellario tantum exclamante CCCXXVII Mich. 15 16 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. IN a Writ of Partition the Defendant prayed in Aid the Plaintiff counterpleaded the Aid upon which Issue was joyned and found for the Plaintiff It was the Opinion of the Court That it was peremptory for the Defendant And the Plaintiff shall have the Partition scil Quod fiat Partitio and the reason thereof is for the delay of the Plaintiff and for the vexation of the Country who are to try it otherwise it had been if it had been adjudged against the Defendant upon a Demurrer CCCXXVIII Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. IN a Formedon of a Manor the Tenant pleaded Ioynt-tenancy by Fine with J. S. The Demandant averred the Tenant sole Tenant as the Writ supposed and upon that Issue was joyned and found for the demandant Vpon which a Writ of Error was brought and Error assigned in this That whereas upon Ioyntenancy pleaded by Fine the Writ ought to abate without any Averment by the Demandant against it the Averment hath been received against the Law And by Southcote at the common Law If the Tenant plead Ioyntenancy by Deed the Writ should abate without any Averment but that was remedied by the Statute of 34 E. 1. but Ioyntenancy by Fine doth remain as it was by the common Law for he hath punishment enough in that because by that Plea if it be false he hath by way of conclusion given away the Moiety of the Land in demand to him with whom he hath pleaded Ioyntenancy and the Law doth not intend that he will so slightly depart with his Land for the abatement of a Writ Else in a Praecipe quod reddat the Tenant confesseth himself to be Villain to a Stranger the Writ shall abate without any Averment of Frank-estate for the Law intends that the Tenant will not enthrawl himself without cause Wray to the same intent But the Demandant may confess and avoid the Fine as to say That he who levied the Fine was his Disseisor upon whom he hath before entred c. And if Tenant in Fee-simple be impleaded and he saith he is Tenant for life the Remainder over to A. in Fee and prayeth in Aid of A. the Demandant shall not take Averment That the Tenant the day of the Writ brought was seized in Fee. Note That in this Fine Ioyntenancy was pleaded but for parcel and it was holden by â—ray and Southcote That the whole Writ should abate as in a Writ against many the misnosmer of the one shall abate the whole Writ against all the Defendants and so where the Demandant enters into parcel of the Land in demand if the Land in demand be one entire thing it shall abate the Writ in all In this Case the Demandant ought to have in his Writ a Foreprise of the Land parcel of the Land in demand whereof the Ioynt-tenancy by Fine is pleaded for this dismembring of the Manor and destruction of the Land whereof the Ioyntenancy is pleaded is peravail and beneath the Gift whereof the Formedon is conceived and therefore in respect of the title of the Demandant it remains in right parcel of the Manor and therefore it ought to be demanded accordingly with a Foreprise But if A. gives to B a Manor except 13 Acres in Tail there if after upon any Discontinuance the Issue in Tail is to have a Formedon in such Case there needs not any Foreprise for the said 10 Acres were never severed from the Manor upon the Gift But if Land in demand be several as 20 Acres but two this Foreprise is not good Vide Temps E. 1. Fitz. Br. 866. Praecipe unam bovat ' terrae except a Selion and the Writ was abated for every demand ought to be certain but a Selion is a parcel of Land uncertain as to the quantity in some places it is an Acre in some more and in some less Another point was That because that the Tenant hath admitted and accepted this Averment scil Sole Tenant as the Writ supposeth if the Court notwithstanding the admittance of the Tenant ought without exception of the party ex Officio abate the Writ And Wray conceived that it might for it is a possitive Law As if a Woman bring an Appeal of Murder upon the death of her Brother and the Defendant doth admit it without Challenge or Exception yet the Court shall abate the Appeal 10 E. 4. 7. And Vide the principal Case there Non ideo puniatur Dominus And if an Action be brought against an Hostler upon the common Custom of the Realm and in the Writ he is not named Common Hostler and the Defendant doth accept of such a Writ without any Exception unto it yet the Court shall abate the Writ ex Officio Vide 38 H. 6. 30. CCCXXIX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. NOte this Case A. makes a Feoffment in Fee to B. and binds himself only to warranty without more B. is impleaded and voucheth A. who enters into the Warranty and loseth so as Iudgment is given against B. and also to recover in value against A. who before Execution dyeth It was the opinion of the Court that B. should have Execution in value against the Heir of A. CCCXXX Mich. 21 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. A. Seized of Lands in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife made a Feoffment in Fee to the use of his said Wife for her life In that case the wife is remitted and it is not like Townsends Case Plowd Com. 111. for in that case the Entry of the Wife was not congeable for she was Tenant in tail which Estate was discontinued by the Feoffment of her Husband Periam Iustice cited Siâ—enhams case Baron seized in the right of his Wife for the term of the life of the Wife They both surrendred and took back the Land to them and a third person And it was holden that the Wife was not presently remitted but after the death of her Husband
But all the Court held the contrary and that the Copy should bind the Feoffee and the ceremony of admittance was not necessary For otherwise every Copyholder in England might be defeated by the sole act of the Lord viz. his Feoffment But the Lord by his own act which shall be accounted his folly hath lost his advantages viz. Fines Heriots and such other Casualties Mich. 29 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. CCCLXV Boxe and Mounslowes Case THomas Boxe brought an Action upon the Case against John Mounslowe That the Defendant slandred him in saying That the said Thomas Boxe is a perjured Knave and that he would prove the said Thomas Boxe had forsworn himself in the Exchequer c. and supposed the said words to be spoken in London 4 Feb. 28 Eliz. Et praedict ' Johannes Mounslowe per Johannem Lutrich Attornatum suum venit defendit vim injuriam quando c. Et dicit quod praedict ' Tho. Boxe actionem suam versus eum habere non debet quia dicit quod praedict ' Thomas Boxe being one of the Collectors of the Subsidies before the speaking of the said words viz. 27 28 Eliz. in Curia Scaccarij apud Westm ' did Exhibt a Bill against the said John Mounslowe containing That the said John being assessed in ten pounds in Goods the said Thomas Boxe came to him and demanded of him sixteen shillings eight pence which the said John Mounslowe did refuse to pay and that demand and refusal was supposed to be in London in Breadstreet Et pro verificatione praemisiorum adâ—unc ibid ' Sacramentum Corporale per Barones praefat ' Thomae Boxe praestitit The said Thomax Boxe swore the said Bill in substance was true ubi revera the said John Mounflowe did not refuse per quod the said John Mounslowe postea viz. praedict tempore quo c. dixit de praefat ' Thoma Boxe praedict verba c. pâ—out ei bene Leuit The Plaintiff replyed that the Defendant spake the words de injuria sua propria absque causa per praefat Johannem Mounslowe superius allegata Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per Curiam praedict defendens similiter And a Venâ—re Facias was awarded to the Sheriffs of London and it was found for the Plaintiff and damages 400 l. And now it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment that there was no good Trial nor the Issue well joyned for the Issue doth consist upon 2 points triable in several Counties viz the Oath which was in the Exchequer and that ough to have been tryed in Middlesex and the matter which he affirmed by the Oath viz the demand and the refusal to pay the subsidy and that was alledged to be in London and is there to be tryed and the Issue viz. de 〈…〉 propria goeth to both for the ubi revera will not amend the Case as Penam Iustice said and both are material For the Defendant ought to prove that the Plaintiff made such Oath and also that the substance and matter of the Oath was not true for otherwise the Plaintiff cannot be proved perjured And therefore the Counties here if they might should have joyned in the Tryal And the Opinion of the Court was against the Plaintiff For Anderson and Wincham said That if this Issue could have been tryed by any one of the Counties without the other it should most properly and naturally have been tried in Middlesex where the Oath was made for the Perjury if any were was in the Exchequer But they said The Issue here was ill joyned because it did arise upon two points triable in several Counties which could not joyn whereas the Plaintiff might have taken Issue upon one of them well enough for each of them did go to the whole and if any of them were found for the Plaintiff that he had sufficient cause to recover Gawdy moved that it should be helped by the Statute of Ieofails which speaks of mis-joyning of Issues Anderson The Issue here is not mis-joyned For if the Counties could joyn the Issue were good but because that the Counties cannot joyn it cannot be well tryed But the Issue it self is well enough Windham and Rhodes were of the same Opinion but Periam doubted it Anderson said That if an Issue tryable in one Court be tryed in another and Iudgment given upon it it is Error And afterwards Lutrich the Attorney said That it was awarded that they should re-plead Nota quod mirum For first the Statute of 32 H. 8. cap. 30. speaks of mis-joyning of Process and not mis-joyning of Issues and admit that this Case is not within any of those Clauses each of them being considered by it self yet I conceive it is contained within the substance and effect of them being considered together Also I conceive it is within the meaning of both Statutes viz. 32 H. 8. cap. 30. 18 Eliz. cap. 14. for I conceive the meaning of both Statutes was to waste delays circuits of Actions and Molestations and that the party might have his Iudgment notwithstanding any defect if it were so that notwithstanding that defect sufficient title and cause did appear to the Court. And here the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause to recover if any of the points of the Issue be found for him For if it be found that the matter and substance of the Oath be found true which might be tryed well enough by those in London the Plaintiff had cause to recover Wherefore I conceive that the Verdict in London is good enough and effectual And note that Rhodes said that he was of Counsel in such a case in the Kings Bench betwixt Nevil and Dent. CCCLXVI Mich. 19 Eliz. In the Common Pleas. 3 Leon. 103. THe Case was A. granted B. a Rent-charge out of his Lands to commence when J. S. dyes without Issue of his Body J. S. dyes having Issue and the Issue dyeth without Issue Dyer said That the Grant shall not take effect for J. S. at the time of his death had Issue and therefore the Grant shall not then commence and if he dyeth then not at all by Manwood And Dyer and Manwood said If the words had been to begin when J. S. is dead without Issue of his Body then such a Grant should take effect when the Issue of J.S. dyes without Issue c. And they said That if the Donee in tail hath Issue which dyeth without Issue the Formedon in Reverter shall suppose that the Donee himself dyed with Issue for there is an Interest And there is a difference betwixt an Interest and a Limitation For if I give Lands to A and B. for the term of their lives if either of them dyeth the Survivor shall hold the whole But if I give Lands to A. for the lives of B. and C. now if B. or C. dyeth the whole Estate is determined because it is but a Limitation and B. and C. have not any Interest CCCLXVII Temps Roign