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
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
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
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
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
any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion although in truth the same doth not touch the Inheritance yet it is a forfeiture Vid. 39 E. 3. 16. If Tenant for life pleads any thing against the right of him in the reversion it is a forfeiture and by Finchden and Belknap he cannot plead in the right 5 Ass 3. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe by a stranger and confesseth the Action upon which the Demandant hath Iudgment the Lessor enters against whom the Demandant sueth Execution The Lessor brought an Assise and had Iudgment to recover for it is a forfeiture because the Tenant for life hath admitted the reversion in another because it is an alienation to the disinheriting of the Plaintiff and of the Lessor 12 E. 3. Fitz Resceipt 14. where Tenant for life pleaded in chief or cannot deny or gainsay the Action of the Demandant or makes default by Covin he shall forfeit his Estate But if a rent be demanded against Tenant for life and he rendreth the same it is no forfeiture 12 Ass 31. Tenant for life is impleaded by Covin between him and the Demandant and pleads in chief without aid prayer upon which Iudgment is given he in the reversion enters in a Juris utrum against Tenant for life who pleads feintly traversing the point of the Action he in the reversion shall not be received for in as much as the Tenant hath traversed the Action he is not within the Statute of West 2. 3 5. Default Reddition but he in the Reversion may enter by the Common Law 22 E. 3. 2. In Scire facias to execute a Fine against Tenant for life who pleaded to the Inquest whereas in truth the Land in demand was not comprised within the Fine Iudgment is given for the Demandant in the Scire facias he in the reversion may enter In our principal case here is apparent and manifest Covin for the Tenant for life voucheth without cause and this Recovery is by assent and is to the use of the Vendee who is Tenant for the life of another and therefore by the Common Law he in the Remainder may enter before Execution sued And it is well known that these common Recoveries are used for to dock Remainders in Tail and that was the scope of this Recovery And as to the Case of 5 E. 4. 2. Tenant for life is impleaded in a Praecipe quod reddat who voucheth a stranger the Demandant counterpleads the Voucher and it is found for him he in the Reversion hath no remedy but by a Writ of Right and if the Vouchee entreth and loseth by Action tryed or default ut supra that Book is to be intended of a Recovery executed for there in such case he in the Reversion hath not an Entry but is put to his Writ of Entry by the Common Law Vide Br. Title Forfeiture 87. 24 H. 8. Tenant for life is impleaded and prays in the Aid of a stranger he in the Reversion may enter but if he doth not enter until the other hath recovered then he cannot enter but is put to his Writ of Entry Ad terminum qui praeteriit vel de ingressu ad Communem Legem and therein he shall falsifie the Recovery and there by Brook Voucher of a stranger is not cause of Forfeiture for it doth not disaffirm the Reversion in the Lessor And he vouched 24 E. 3. 68. where Tenant for life pleaded in the right with aid prayer And so he argued that before Execution he in the Remainder might enter but after Execution is put to his Action But in our Case although that Execution be good yet he in the Remainder may enter for it is found by Verdict that at the time of the Recovery he was within age and that when he dyed that he in the next Remainder was within age and then no Entry shall be imputed and then he shall not be driven to his Action As if Tenant by the Courtesie makes a Feoffment with warranty and dyeth and the same descends to his Heir within age yet he shall enter although he hath not avoided the warranty in the life of his Ancestors Also he said that the Statute of 32 H. 8. extended to this Case for Sir William Pelham the Vendee was but Tenant for life and although that he be but Tenant for the life of another yet he is Tenant for life as fully as if he were Tenant for his own life or otherwise Tenant for life or lives Note this the words of the Statute As upon the Statute of 20 E. 1. which gives Resceipt de defensione juris the words are Cum quis aliquod breve Domini Regis impetret versus Tenentem per Legem Angliae vel feod taliat ' vel sub Nomine Dotis vel alio modo ad terminum vitae upon these words it is holden 11 H. 4. That where Land was given to one and his heirs for the life of another that upon such an Estate he in the reversion should be received by reason of these words vel alio modo ad terminum vitae c. And although he who enters at the time of the recovery was not next in remainder to the particular Estate yet he is within the Statute of 32 H. 8. For he was in remainder at the time of the recovery and at the time of the entry he in the immediate remainder was dead and then he the next in remainder Vide 15 E. 4. 9. by Litt. If I grant my Services to one for life and he in a Praecipe brought against him pleads in the right or grants to another the said Services in Fee it is not a Forfeiture for it is no Discontinuance It will be objected That the words of the Statute of 32 H. 8. are That such recoveries shall be utterly void and if so then he in the reversion cannot be damnified and then no cause of Forfeiture So that it may be easily answered That where Tenant for life doth any thing which sounds to the disinheriting of him in the reversion by matter of record although the same doth not devest or otherwise prejudice the Inheritance yet it is a Forfeiture Cook to the contrary Here in our Case is not any Covin in Sir William Pelham the Bargainee he was deceived by the Bargainor for he did not know but that the Bargainor was seized in tail according to the Covenant in the Indenture by which the Bargainor covenanted that he was seized in tail at the time of the Bargain and also to do any other act for assurance of the Estate of the Bargainee and it was lawful for him to Vouch his Bargainor and although he voucheth a stranger it is not a Forfeiture 39 E. 3. 16. Aid prayer of a stranger is a Forfeiture and the reason of that is because he acknowledgeth the reversion to be in a stranger and that is the cause of Forfeiture Vide Book of Entries 254. Where upon
by a Writ of Right So if the Vouchee had entred and lost c. As to that Case we ought to consider That every Book reported in our Law is not Law But let us observe of what Authority the Case is truly it is the conceit of the Reporter himself for he puts the Case and resolves it but there is no Iudge or Serjeant named in the Case c. The other Case is 5 E. 4. 2. Note by Hendon 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 him who hath in value shall be to me in lieu of my former reversion as release to Tenant for 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 have a good title so as the Tenant or the Voucher as Hendon saith know not how to bar the Demandant there such a Voucher of a Stranger is not a Forfeiture nor such recovery suffered thereupon for against his will and volens nolens he suffered it But if the Tenant had good matter to bar the Demandant and no good cause of Voucher that the vouching of a stranger or suffering of a recovery is a Forfeiture of his Estate And here in our Case the Defendant had not any title The Tenant or Vouchee had not any Warranty or cause of Voucher But the Tenant might have barred the Demandant if he pleased And he said That the Voucher only doth not make the Forfeiture but much rather the Recovery for when Iudgment is given and Execution had then is the Fee plucked out of him in the reversion 6 R. 2. If Tenant for life claimeth a Fee it is a Forfeiture but here Pelham hath done more for he hath gained Fee by the Iudgment therefore à Fortiori it shall be a Forfeiture But let us a little see what medlings or attempts by the particular Tenant are causes of a Forfeiture and what not 5 Ass 3. Where A. brings an 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 confesseth the Action upon which Iudgment is given B enters and his entry adjudged lawful for that recovery is adjudged in Law but an Alienation to the disinherisin of him in the reversion and here it appears 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. Resceit 135. Where Tenant for life pleads in chief or prays in aid of a stranger where he might bar the Demandant and will not it is a Forfeiture And also 22 E. 3. 2. 27 E. 3. where Tenant for life in a Quid juris clamat Attorns unto the Conusee upon a Fine levyed by him who hath not any thing in the Land the same is a Forfeiture and yet that Attornment doth not divert the Reversion out of the Lessor 50 E. 3.7 8. Land was given by Fine in tail the remainder over to a stranger in Fee the Donee took a Wife and dyed without Issue the Wife accepted Dower assigned by a stranger he in the Remainder brought a Scire facias against the Wife that she is Tenant in Dower of the Assignment of a stranger and pleaded to the Title the Demandant recovered she hath lost her Dower for she hath not pleaded dutifully as she ought being a particular Tenant Temps 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 c. 5 H. 7. 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 sur Conusans c. come ceo que il ad de son done All these are Forfeitures In our principal Case here the Tenant who suffered the Recovery did not plead at all to defend the Right but where he might have barred the Demandant he gave strength to his pretended Title and made it a perfect Title and by suffering the Recovery and Iudgment to pass had taken away the Reversion out of the Lessor to whom he owed Fealty and therefore it is a Forfeiture And without doubt it is apparent to the Court that the Demandant in this Recovery hath not any Title for the Recoverers in such Cases are but Assignees and Purchasors which appeareth by the Statute of 7 H. 8. cap. 4. which gives Distress and Avowry to Recoverers 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 grand Mischiefs and Inconveniencies in this Realm and it was great reason for Tenant in tail might by the Common Law alien his Land post prolem suscitat and then he had an Inheritance and might commit Waste But he was so restrained by the Statute of Westm 2. all the Realm and the Subjects of it were inveigled thereby Ioyntures of Wives Leases of Farmers Mortgages to Creditors Statutes and other Assurances defeated by their deaths which was against the Common Law and all Conscience These matters tending to the knowledge of the Iustices and the Mischiefs thereupon ensuing very frequent and that Tenant in tail was become a perillous Fellow and there was no safe dealing with him Then they taking into consideration that several Warranties and Assets and collateral Warranty without Assets for that in it self implyed Assets did bar him Icil. the Entail upon that consideration they grounded the practice and usage of common Recoveries so that by that means Tenant in tail has potestatem alienandi as he had at the Common Law because his authority was restored to him and injury done to no man But as to Tenant for life he never had potestatem alienandi And as to that which hath been said That the Recovery shall stand in force till after the death of the Tenant for life and in our Case here Tenant in tail is living certainly if the Law should be such great mischief would follow for then greater Ioyntresses the Widows of great Persons having allowed unto them great and sumptuous Houses and Lands furnished with Timber of great value might suffer such Recoveries and so having plucked the Fee out of the Heirs might commit Waste and the same should be dispunishable c. which should be an intolerable Mischief And so he concluded that this suffering of a Recovery was a Forfeiture and Iudgment was given accordingly CCLII Grendon and Albanies Case JOhn Grendon brought Trespass for breaking of his Close against Tho Albany And upon the pleading the Case
for 21 years to begin at Michaelmas before and in pleading it was shewed That virtute cujus dimissionis posterioris the Plaintiff entred fuit possess crastino Michaelis which was before the making of the Lease and the Plaintiff in his Declaration declared That the Defendant in consideration that the Plaintiff had assigned to him the said Leases had promised to pay to him 630 l. It was found for the Plaintiff Cook For where the Plaintiff in an Action upon the Case declares upon two Considerations in such Case although the one be void yet if the other be good and sufficient the Action is maintainable but the Damages shall be given without respect had to the Consideration insufficient and the Plaintiff was to declare upon both Considerations for the Assumpsit upon which the Action is conceived was in consideration that both the Leases were assigned to the Defendant and our Declaration ought to be according to the Assumpsit and it was not material although that one of the Considerations was utterly void Another Exception was taken Because the Lease is set forth to be made 18 October and that by virtue thereof the Plaintiff entred Cro. Mich. Then the Plaintiff entring Cro. Mich. was a Disseisor and then being in by disseisin he could not assign his Interest to another and that appears clearly to the Court upon the whole matter But Cook said That shall not hurt us for it is but matter of surplusage to say Virtute cujus c. As 20 H. 6. 15. the Plaintiff in Trespass supposed by his Declaration that the Trespass for which the Action was brought commenced 10 H. 6. with a Continuando until the day of the Action brought viz. idem 14 Febr. 17 H. 6. where the Writ bore date 12 die Octobris Anno 17 H. 6. And Exception was taken to the Declaration because the continuance of the time was not put in certainty But the Exception was not allowed for it is certain enough before the viz. the day of Writ brought and so the viz is void and all that which follows upon it And so here this Clause Virtute cujus est totum sequitur est omnino void 7 H. 4.44 Br. Action upon the Case 37. The Writ was Quare Toloniam asportavit illud solvere recusavit Exception was taken to the repugnancy for it would not be carried away if it were not paid before yet the Writ was awarded good and the first word Toloniam asportavit holden void So here in the principal Case As to the other Exception it is clear That here is not any Disseisin upon this Entry of the Plaintiff before the making of the said Lease for there was a Communication betwixt the Parties of such a Lease to be made or of such an Assignment and peradventure the Entry was by assent of the other part and then no Disseisin And posito it should be a Disseisin yet the Plaintiff hath assigned all the Interest quod ipse tunc habuit according to the consideration and delivered to the Defendant both the Indentures of Demises and so he hath granted all that which he might grant And if it be a void Assignment or not is not material for quacunque via data the Consideration is good and then the Assumpsit good also Egerton Solicitor contrary In every Action upon the Case upon Assumpsit three things ought to concur Consideration Promise and breath of Promise and in this Case the Assignment of the Lease to begin after the death of the Lessor is void being but Tenant for life and no Consideration upon the confession of the Plaintiff himself And upon the second Consideration it appeareth the Lessor viz. the Wife who held for life had but a right to the Land demised for she was disseised for he to whom the Land was after let entred before the Lease was made for it doth not appear that he entred by force of any agreement made before the Lease therefore by his Entry he was a Disseisor It was also moved That here was not any sufficient consideration for by a bare or naked delivery Nihil operatur and here is not any word of Give or Grant. To which it was answered That the delivery of the Indenture was not a bare Bailment but a Delivery to the use in the Indenture and so it is pleaded and therefore thereby an Interest passed for such a delivery cannot be countermanded An Indenture with an Averment shall never make an Estoppel Clench Iustice If I deliver any thing to one for his proper use an Interest passeth but if it be to the use of another no Interest passeth The party may have usum but not proprietatem CCLVII Mich. 18 Eliz. In the Kings Bench. Contract IF a Contract be made betwixt two here in England scil that one of them shall carry certain Goods of the others to Burdeux in France and sell them there and with the mony thereof coming shall buy other Goods for the use of him who was the owner of the first Goods and safely them deliver to him in London If now the party sell them in Burdeux and buyeth others with the monies thereof and brings them into England and there converts them to his own use upon this matter an Action lyeth at the Common Law for the Contract and the Conversion being the cause of the Action was made in England But if the Contract only was in England and the Conversion beyond the Seas the Party at his Election may sue at the Common Law or in the Court of Admiralty And if a Merchant here write to his Factor in France to receive certain Merchandizes which he hath sent to him and to Merchandize with them for his use if the Factor receiveth them and converts them to his own use the Father shall be sued in the Admiralty 25 Eliz. CCLVIII. The Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoyes Case IT was agreed by the two Lord Chief Iustices 1 And. 308. upon conference had with the other Iustices in the Case between the Earl of Huntington and the Lord Mountjoy That where the Lord Mountjoy by Deed indented and inrolled bargained and sold the Manor of Camford to Brown in Fee in which Indenture a Clause was Proviso semper and the said Brown covenants and grants cum and with them the Lord Mountjoy his Heirs and Assigns That the said Lord his Heirs and Assigns might dig for Ore in the Wasts of Camford And also to dig Turf there to make Allom and Copperice without any contradiction of Brown his Heirs and Assigns that now here is a new Grant of an Interest to dig to the said Lord and his Heirs in the Lands aforesaid and not a bare Covenant and it was holden also that the said Lord could not divide the Interest granted to him in form aforesaid viz. To grant to another to dig one part of the said Waste c. But they were of Opinion That Brown his Heirs and Assigns notwithstanding
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
shall be special and shall make special recital of the Estate And so is the Case 26 H. 8. 6. where Cestuy que use makes a lease and the Lessee commits waste there the Action was brought by the Feoffees containing the special matter and it was good although there was not any such Writ in the Register cujus haeredes de Corpore and we are not to devise a new form in such case but it is sufficient to shew the special matter to the Court. And the words of the Writ are true for they are Heirs to Sir Roger Lewknor and the Count is sufficient pursuant and agreeing to their Writ for they are Heirs although they are not special Heirs of the Body and so the Court was of Opinion that the Writ was good notwithstanding that Exception And Anderson and Periam Iustices said That the Case is not to be compared to the Case in Fitz. Nat. Brevium 57. for there he cannot shew by whose demise the Tenant holdeth if he doth not shew the special Conveyance viz that the Land was given to the Husband and Wife and to the Heirs of the Body of the Wife Nor is it like to the Case of 26 H. 8. for the same cause For always the demise of the Tenant ought to be specially shewed and certainly which it cannot be in these two Cases but by the disclosing of the title also to the reversion Another Exception was taken because that the Writ doth suppose Quod tenuerunt which as they conceived is to be meant that tenuerunt joyntly whereas in truth they were Tenants in Common Walmsley contrary because there is not any other form of Writ for there is not any Writ which doth contain two tenuerunts and the words of the Writ are true quod tenuerunt although tenuerunt in Common but although they were not true yet because there is no other form of Writ it is good enough as Littleton If a Lease be made for half a year and the Lessee doth Waste yet the Writ shall suppose Quod tenuit ad terminum annorum and the Count shall be special 40 E. 3. 41 E. 3. 18. If the Lessee doth commit Waste and granteth over his term the Writ shall be brought against the Grantor and shall suppose Quod tenet and yet in truth he doth not hold the Land and the Writ shall not contain two Tenets and such also was the Opinion of the Court. The third Exception was because that the Writ was brought by the two Coparceners and the Heir of the third Coparcener without naming of Tenant by the Courtesie And thereupon Snag cited the Case of 4 E. 3. That where a Lease is made for life the Remainder for life and the Tenant for life doth waste he in the Reversion cannot have an Action of Waste during the life of him in the Remainder So in the like case the Heir of the third Coparcener cannot have waste because there is a mean Estate for life in the Tenant by the Courtesie And to prove that the Tenant by the Courtesie ought to joyn in the Writ he cited the Case of 3 E. 3. which he had seen in the Book at large where the Reversion of a Tenant in Dower was granted to the Husband and to the Heirs of the Husband and the Tenant in Dower did waste and they did joyn in the Action of Waste and holden good And so is 17 E. 3. 37. F. N. B. 59. 22 H. 6. 25. Walmsley contrary for here in our Case there is nothing to be recovered by the Tenant by the Courtesie for he cannot recover damages because the disinherisin is not to him and the term is expired and therefore no place wasted is to be recovered and therefore it is not like to the Books which have been vouched For in all those the Tenant was in possession and the place wasted was to be recovered which ought to go to both according to their Estates in Reversion but so it is not here for in as much as the term is expired the Land is in the Tenant by Courtesie and so he hath no cause to complain And such also was the Opinion of the whole Court that the Writ was good notwithstanding the said Exception Then concerning the principal matter in Law which was whether the Writ was well brought against the second Lessee or whether it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee It was argued by Shuttleworth That it ought to have been brought against the first Lessee for when he granted over his term excepting the Trees the Exception was good ergo c. For when the Land upon which the Trees are growing is leased out to another the Trees pass with the Lease as well as the Land and the profit of them is in the Lessee during the term and therefore when he grants his term he may well except the Trees as well as the Lessor might have done And that is proved by the Statute of Marlbridge for before that Statute the Lessee was not punishable for cutting down the Trees and that Statute doth not alter the property of the Trees but only that the Lessee should render damages if he cut them down c. Also the words of the Writ of Waste proveth the same which are viz. â—n terris domibus c. sibi dimissis And the Lessee might have cut them down for Reparation and for Firewood if there were not sufficient Vnderwood which he could not have done if the Trees had not been excepted And in 23 H. 8. Br. it is holden that the excepting of the Trees is the excepting of the Soil And so is 46 E. 3. â— where one made a Lease excepting the Woods and afterwards the Lessee did cut them down and the Lessor brought an Action of Trespass Quare vi armis clausum fregâ— c. and it was good notwithstanding Exception was taken to it And it is holden 12 E. 4. 8. by Fairfax Littleton That if the Lessee cut the Trees that the Lessor cannot carry them away but he is put to his Action of Waste Fenner and Walmsley Serjeants contrary And they conceived that the Lessee hath but a special property in the Trees viz. for Fire-boot Plough-boot House-boot c. and if he pass over the Lands unto another that he cannot reserve to himself that special property in the Trees no more than he who hath Common appendant can grant the principal excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting and reserving the Common or grant the Land excepting the Foldage The grand property of the Trees doth remain in the Lessor and it is proved by 10 H. 7. 30. 27 H. 8. 13. If Tenant for life and he in the Reversion joyn in a Leafe and the Lessee doth Waste they shall joyn in an Action of Waste and the Tenant for life shall recover the Free-hold and the first Lessor the damages which proves that the property of the Trees is in him As to