albeit he died before the day of payment because this was a summ in grosse limited to be paid to the said Thomas at a certain time But if it shall be taken for a Condition in William he thinks cleerly that the said William ought to have given notice to the Executrix of the said Thomas before he had made his first entry into the Land of the Ten. when he intended to make his entry so that the Executrix might be there at the same time to have made demand of the money which ought to have been done or otherwise there cannot be a refusall in the said William and without his refusall or other default in him the Condition cannot be broken if it had such a relation as to make the payment as George ought to do it And so the Executor of Thomas cannot have notice when William will make his first entry into the Land if he do not give him notice of it and therfore if it shall be a Condition it had been broken on the part of William for want of giving notice to the Executor of the time of his first entry wherby the Executor might have notice of the time to make his demand because without a demand refusall cannot be and the Executor is excused to make demand when he had no notice of the time and therfore the default of William in not giving notice of it shall be taken against him as strongly as if he had made a refusall to pay upon demand for if notice had been given to the Executor and he had demanded the money and William had said nothing to it but omitted to pay it yet this shall be a refusall in Law But of this nothing appeareth in the Verdict whether the Executor had notice given to him or not nor nothing mentioned in the Verdict whether any demand or refusall was made of the money or not and therfore the Verdict as to these points is incertain to judge upon whether it shall be taken to be a Condition in William But it seems as the Verdict is that Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff for the conclusion of the Verdict is upon the entry of the Defendant whether this be lawfull or not and not upon the expulsion or whether upon the other Moyetie his entry was lawfull in right of the said William because they were Tenants in Common 3. IN Trespasse of Assault Battery and Imprisonment made such a day at in the Countie of Cornwall brought by against The Defendant saith that he was Constable of the same Town and that the Plaintiff the said day year and place brought an Infant not above the age of ten daies in his armes and left him upon the ground to the great disturuance of the people there being and that he commanded the Plaintiff to take up the said Infant and to carry it from them with him which the Plaintiff refused to do for which cause he quietly laid his hands upon the Plaintiff and committed him to the Stocks in the same Town where he continued for such a time untill he agreed to take up the Infant again which is the same Assault Battery and Imprisonment of which the Plaintiff complains upon which the Plaintiff demurred Fennor was of opinion that that which the Constable did was lawfull and that it is hard that an Officer shall be so drawn in question for it for this shall be an utter discouragement to good Officers to execute their Offices as they ought to do Popham A Constable is one of the most ancient Officers in the Realm for the conservation of the Peace and by his Office he is a Conservator of the Peace and if he sees any breaking of the Peace he may take and imprisen him untill he find surety by obligation to keep the Peace And if a man in fury be purposed to kill maime or beat another the Constable seeing it may arrest and imprison him untill his rage be passed for the conservation of the Peace And if a man layes an Infant which cannot help it self upon a Dunghill or openly in the field so that the Beasts or Fouls may destroy it the Constable seeing it may commit the party so doing to Prison for what greater breach of the Peace can there be then to put such an Infant by such means in danger of its life And what diversity is there between this case and the case in question for no body was bound by the Law to take up the Infant but he which brought it thither and by such means the Infant might perish the default therof was in the Plaintiff and therfore the Action will not lye And therupon it was agreed that the Plaintiff take nothing by his Writ Hayes versus Allen. 4. TErm Pasch 33 Eliz. Rot. 1308. A Cui in vita was brought in the Common Pleas by Ralph Hayes against William Allen of a Messuage with the Appurtenances in St. Dunstans in the East London in which it was supposed that the said Wil. had no entry but after the demise which John Bradley late husband to Anne Bradley Aunt of the said Ralph whose heir the said Ral was made to Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen and counts accordingly shews how Cosin and Heir to wit Son of Wil. brother of the said Anne Wil. Allen traverse the Demise made to the said Tho. and Jo. Allen and at Nisi prius it was found that the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife was seised in their demesn as of fee in right of the said Ann of a Messuage in S. Dunstans aforesaid containing from the North to the South 18 foot and from East to West 12 foot and a half and being so seised during their Marriage by their Deed sealed with their Seals enfeoffed the said Tho. Allen and Jo. Allen therof to hold to them and their heirs to the use of the said Jo. Bradley and Anne his wife for their lives and afterwards to the use of the Church-wardens of S. Dunstans Lond. and of their successors for ever to the use of the poor of the same place and that Livery was made accordingly and that the said Deed was inrolled in the Chancery at Westm and that afterwards the said Anne died and that Jo. Bradley survived her died and that the right of the said Mess descended to the said Ra. as cosin and heir of the said A. And that Sir W. Allen K. was seised of a peece of land in S. Dunst aforesaid containing 6 foot 4 inches contigious and adjacent to the said Mess late the said Jo. Bradleys and A. his wife in his demesn as of fee And that the said Sir Wil. after the said feoffment and before this Writ purchased utterly drew away the said Messuage late the said John Bradleys and Ann his wife and drected a new house upon the Land of the said Sir William and upon part of the Land upon which the other house stood containing from the North to the South thirteen foot from the East
effect by the very rules of Littleton And by 27 H. 7. which is That a Remainder cannot be unlesse there be an Estate upon which it may have dependency which there it cannot but in the case of a Disseisin made to a particular Estate it is otherwise because there the Estate remains in right And to say that it shall not be a Forfeiture because the Feoffment was made to Christopher who then had the Fee-simple which was limited to the right Heirs of Sir Richard Chudleigh this is not so for by 41 E. 3. The Tenant for life himself who also had a Remainder in Fee-simple in himself depending upon a mean Estate-tail in another made a Feoffment and by it committed a Forfeiture to him in the Remainder in tail But if Tenant for life Remainder in tail Remainder in Fee enfeoff him in the Remainder in tail this is a Surrender of his Estate for the immediate Estate which was in him wherupon this Term Judgment was given in the Kings Bench for Fraine the Defendant against Dillon who was Plaintiff And it is entred Hill 31 Eliz. Rot. 65. Baynes Case 10. AT the Sessions holden at Newgate presently after this Term the case was this one Baines with another came in the night time to a Tavern in London to drink and after they had drunk the said Baynes stole a cup in which they drunk in a Chamber of the same House the Owner of the said House his Wife and servants then being also in the House and the cup being the Owners of the said Tavern wherupon he was indited and committed Burglary this matter appeared in the Inditement and agreed by Popham Anderson and Periam with the Recorder and Serjants at Law then being there that this was not Burglary and yet it was such a Robbery whereby he was ousted of the benefit of his Clergy by the Statute of 5. E. 6. Cap. 9. and was â—anged 11. ANd at the Sessions then next ensuing 〈◊〉 holden upon one who had stolen a silver Bason Ewer of the then Bishop of Worcester the sale made openly in the day in a Scriveners shop in London to a stranger the question was demanded of the Court whether the property were changed by this Sale so that the Bishop shall not have his Plate againe because it was alledged that they prescribed that every one of their shops in London are good Markets overt through all London every day in the week but Sunday But agreed by Popham Egerton Anderson Brian and others skilfull in the Law then being there that such a generall custome is not good and that this Sale made there albeit it were openly in the shop so that every one passing by In which case Shops in London are Markets Overt what not might see it shall not bind the property as it shall doe in Market overt for a Scriveners Cutlers Shop or the like is not proper for the Sale of I late nor a place to which men will go to seek for such a thing lost or stole But a Goldsmiths Shop is the proper Shop for it as the Drapers Shop is for Woollen cloath or the Mercers Shop for Silk and the like and to such men will go to seek for things of the like nature that are lost or stolen and not to a Scriveners Shop or the like And they agreed also that a private Sale made in the Shops which are proper to the nature of the thing sold so that the Passers by cannot in reason see it in their passage cannot bind for reason upon which the Law is founded will not admit any such custome Hillary Term 37 Eliz. in the Kings Bench. Westby versus Skinner and Catcher 1. IN Debt by Titus Westby Plaintiff against Thomas Skinner and John Chatcher late Sheriffs of London Defendants for 440 l. upon Nihil debet pleaded and a special Verdict found the Case appeared to be this See this case in Coke 3. Report fol 71. 6. to wit One Anthony Bustard with others were bound in a Recognizance in the nature of a Statute-staple of 440 l. to the Plaintif wherupon the Plaintif sued Execution out of the Chancery against the said Anthony and the other that were bound with him for the Bodies Goods and Lands of the said Obligers which writ of Execution was delivered to the said Defendants the 8th day of Prisoners in execution to be delivered over to the new Sheriff by Indenture and all the executions to be therin moved September 30. Eliz. the Defendants then being Sheriffes of London and the said Anthony being then in Newgate in Execution in the custody of the said Defendants for 240 l. at the suit of one Robert Deighton and that afterwards to wit the 20 th day of October in the same yeer the said Defendants were discharged and removed from their said Offices and Hugh Offeley Richard Saltonstall were then made Sheriffes of London and that the said Anthony being in Execution for the one and the other debt the said Defendant the said 20th day of October by Indenture delivered the said Anthony to the said new Sheriffes in Execution for the said debt of the said Robert Deighton not giving them any noâ—ice of the said Execution made for the Plaintiff and suffered the said Anthony to goe at large And whether the Defendants shall be charged for this escape was the question And the escape was alledged by the Declaration to be suffered by the said Defendants the said 20. day of October 30 Eliz. and it was moved by Tanfield that the new Sheriffs ought to take notice of their Prisoners remaining in the Goal at their coming into their Office at their perill and ought to enquire and search for the causes that then were in custody and not to deliver them of their own head without due course of Law And he put the case That if the old Sheriff had been dead in the mean time before the new Sheriffs had been made shal this be an excuse to the new Sheriffs that they had no notice for what cause this Anthony had been in Prison if they suffer him to escape And he said that it shall not no more here but per Curiam the new Sheriff shall not be charged with this Escape as to the 440 l. of which they had no notice for if this case which was private in the knowledge of the ancient Sheriff only upon a Writ directed to them at the suite of any party the new Sheriffs cannot by intendment have any knowledge unlesse it be given to them by the old Sheriffs to whom the Writ of Execution was directed and delivered And the case of one Dabridgecourt who was Sheriff of Warwick and had one in Execution whom he kept in a private Prison by himself for all his Executions in the Town of Warwick and when he was discharged of his Office and a new Sheriff made Dabridgecourt said to the new Sheriff That he had such a one in Execution
a Lease made de Burg. sine Tent. which is not good no more then in Ejectione firmae de Mess sive Tent. 2. Because the Judgement is not quod capitur as it ought to be because it is vi armis 3. The judgement is Ideo concessum est where it ought to be consideratus est and for these Errors the Judgement was reversed And the same day another Judgement between Bell and Margery Strongury was reversed for the same causes The same Term in the same Court. Petit versus Robinson IN Error to reverse a Iudgment given in C. B. in a Replevin there Jermy for the Plaintiff assigned two Errors 1. It appears that after the Writ and before the triall it was coram Justiciar Dic. Domini Regis and there was not any speech of any King but of King James before and there is no speech of his demise and therefore this shall be intended before the Iustices of King James which cannot be 2. Because the Nisi prius is certified to be tried before Francisco Harvey Mill. uno Justiciar c. the Postea returned is before Francisco Harvey Arm. argued so there was no such Iudge of Nisi prius as Francis Harvey Banks for the Defendant I conceive the first errors to be because the adjournment was per br Dom. Reg. and King James was named before so that the objection may be that it shall be intended the Writ of Adjournment of King James which cannot be but I conceive the Writ is generall and shall not be intended â—hat it can be adjourned by the Kings Writ who was dead before and the Clerk of the Assises who certified it is bound to take notice of the Kings death 37. H. 6. 28. and also the Record is not per br Dic. Dom. Regis but per br Domini Regis generally And for the second I conceive it is no error and if it be error then if the Certificate be not according to the Copy out of which the Clerke certifies it shall be amended 22. E. 4 22. 35. H. 6. 23. b. Co. lib. 8. 136. Blackmores case which is a stronger case then this But it hath been objected that the Record is certified by the Iustices and now there can be no averment to the contrary but I conceive that this Court may send to the Clark of the Assizes to amend it and those objections were over-ruled in C. B. in the same case Doderidge Iustice I conceive that notwithstanding these exceptions the Iudgement ought to be affirmed for as to the first the Court is bound to take notice of the demise of the King and therefore it shall be intended the King that now is and so the Writ of adâ—ournment good enough in Dyer King Henry 8. made a Patent and it was Eâ—ricus Dei gratia c. where it should be Henricus and yet the Patent good so in a Writ to the Bishop the subscription is Episcop Norw this is good enough for the Bishop of Norwich is very well known And for the other I conceive it is not well alledged because it is not showne whether he were a Knight at the time of the Certificate or not and so it may well stand together that he was a Knight for he might be an Esquire at the time of the triall and before the Record certified might be made Knight Jones Iustice to the same intent and that we ought to take notice of the demise of the King therefore it shall be intended of the Writ of adjournment of the King which now is and therefore it is no error and yet if it were it were amendable Whitlock Iustice agreed and therefore the Iudgement was affirmed by the whole Court The same Term in the same Court. Crabbe and his Wife versus Tooker IN Covenant betweene Walter Crabbe and Anne his Wife against Tooker the covenant upon which the breach was layd was this Tooker the Defendant covenanted with Tooker his Son and Anne Slade one of the Plaintiffs whom he intended to marry to give them their meat and drink in his house and if any discontent should happen between the Father and Son so that he and his Wife Anne should disagree to dwell with Tooker the Father then they should have 6. Beasts gates c. Tooker the Son died Anne disagree to dwell with Tooker the Father and marries with Crabbe who with hâ—s Wife Anne brings this Action and Taylor argued for the Planitiff that the Action lies for albeit the Covenant be in the conjunctive if they disagree yet it shall have a disjunctive interpretation as where a man covenant to levy a fine to one and his heirs if he dies the Covenantor may levy a fine to his Heirs and Hill and Granges case in Plow Two Tenants in common grant a rent this shall be taken for severall Rents and Co. lib. 5. Slingesbyes case also the Wife is party to this covenant and she must either have remedy upon this covenant after the death of her Husband or not at all for she cannot disagree in the life time of her Husband per que c. And it was agreed on the other side that there ought to be a dislike between all joyntly the Father the Son and the Wife and now one of them being dead the covenant is discharged like to the case put in Brudenels case Co. lib. 5. If Administration be grant during the minority of 3 if one of them dies the administration ceaseth and 31. Eliz. in C. B. A Lease was made to three and the Lessor grants to them to be dispunishable of Wast quamdiu cohabitarent one of them dies and it was resolved that now they shall be liable to wast Also the Bar is not bone for it is pleaded that Discordia orta fuit and doth not shew what manner of discord this was and therefore not good as 3 H 6. In Annuity brought Pro concilio c. he ought to shew for what manner of Councel it was Whitlock Justice was of opinion for the Plaintiff and that this Covenant extends to the Wife and that upon equall construction because it comes in place of the first Covenant and this was intended for the benefit of the Wife as well after the death of the Husband as before Jones Justice was of the contrary opinion and that the second covenant was a severall covenant from the first and that the disagreement is to be made by all three joyntly and that when one dies the Covenant is gone 2. Eliz. Dyer A man will that A. B. and C. his Feoffees shall sell his Land B. dies now the Authority is determined The Lord Gray committed the custody of his Son to four one of them dies the authority is gone and in this case there is no matter of interest but an agreement and in such a case as this is a Feme covert hath a will albeit she hath no legall will but in this case there ought to be a disagreement of both and
Harrison Erringtons case 202p Hebborns case 206p I JEne and Chesters case 151p Jenningâ— Maystâ—â—â— case 102b Jorden Ayliffs case 168b Jenkin and Vivians case 201p K. Kettle and Masons Case 50p King and Berys Case 57p Kellies Case 104p Kirton and Hoxtons case 115p The King and Brigs case 150p Kebles case 18â—b Knights case 187b King Merricks case 2o L Lee and Browns case 128p Lewes and Jeofferies case 153p Lemasons and Dicksons case 189p Laurking and Wylds case 126p Leechford and Saunders case 194b Liverel and Rivets case 206b Lathams case 210b M MIchels case 8b Morgans case 52p Morgan and Tadcastles case 55p Montague and Jeofferies case 108p Mounson and Wests case 110p May and Kets case 129p Middletons case 131p May and Samuels case 134p Mingies case 135p Sir Arthur Mannarings case 145p Morley and Sir Richard Molineuxs case 1â—5p Millen and Fandries case 161p March and Fandries case 161p March and Newmans case 163p Mayor of Maidstons case 180p Mills and Parsons case 199b O OAks and the Lord Sturtonrs case 65b Overton and Sydalls case 120p Old and Estgreens case 160b Owen Wards case 187b P PIgots case 94p Porramor and Veralds case 101p Pollard and Lutterells case 108p Sir John Pools case 128p Powels case 139p Pack and Metholds case 160p Probe and Maynes case 192b Petit and Robinsons case 203p Ployden and Symes case 205p R ROper and Ropers case 106b Robinson Walkers case 127p Rawlinson and Greens case 127p Rones case 133p Richardson and Cabells case 142p Sir George Reynalds case 165p Ryman and Bickleys case 129p Reynor and Hallets case 187p Rochester and Rickhouse case 203p Rosse and Harvies case 206b Risley and Hains case 209p S STocks case 37p Smiths case 53p Southwell and Wards case 91p Sawyer and Hardies case 99p Stainings case 102p Scot and Mainys case 109p Strowd and Wyllis case 114p Southern and Howes case 143p Silvesters case 148p Stone and Withipoles case 152p Sary and Pigots case 166p Sharp and Rasts case 181p Snaggs case 187b Sherry and Richardsons case 15p Smithers case 169b Scheverel Dales case 193p Sanders Meritors case 200p Staple Kings case 206b Savile Wortleys case 207p Sparman Sherwoods case 222p T THompson Traffords case 8p Taunton Raries case 106p Tailours case 133p Thurman Coopers case 188p Talbot and Sir Walters Lacens case 146p Turner and Dennis case 169 V VAughans case 134p W WOod and Downings case 10p Webly and Skinners case 85p Wood and Matthews case 102p Westcot and Cottons case 130p Wrenhams case 135p Wootton and Byes case 136p Wards case 144p Webb and Paternosters case 151p Westermans case 151p Wales case 160p Welden and Bâ—sies case  Wicks case 186b Williams and Vaughans case 186b Willers case 197b Whelhorseys case 208p Woodroof and Vaughans case 210q CASES Reported by S R. JOHN POPHAM Knight Lord chief Justice of ENGLAND In the time of Queen ELIZABETH and written with his own hand in French and now faithfully done into English to which are added some remarkable CASES Reported by other Learned and Judicious Pens since his death Fenner versus Fisher Mich. 34. and 35. Eliz. Reginae in the Kings Bench IN Trespasse brought by Iustice Fenner against Andrew Fisher for a Trespasse done in the Parsonage house of Cravfords in the County of Kent 30. Maij 34. of the Queen the Defendant pleaded that one 〈…〉 was seised of the same Messuage in his Demesne as of see and being so seised the 〈…〉 day of in the same year did demise it to the Defendant for two years from such a Feast then last past by virtue of which he entred and was possessed untill the Plaintiff claiming by colour of a Deed made of the sayd Wrighâ— where nothing passed by the Deed upon which the Defendant entred c. The Plaintiff replies by protestation that the sayd Wrighâ— was not seised as the Defendant hath alledged And for Plea saith that the sayd Wright did not let it to the Defendant as the Defendant hath alledged upon which being at Issue and found for the Plaintif Ackinson moved that Iudgment ought not to be given for the plaintiff because that he hath not made any Title by his Replication for by 9 E. 4. 49. In Trespasse the Defendant pleads in Bar and gives colour to the Plaintiff it is taken for a Rule that the Plaintiff ought to make Title Cook answered that he needs not to make Title in this case but that it sufficeth to traverse the Bar without making a Title and sayd that in 22 E. 4. Fitzh Trespass It is adjudged that in Trespasse the Plaintiff may traverse the Bar without making Title in his Replication and here in as much as it is acknowledged by the Defendant that Wright did demise it to the Plaintiff and that this is a Lease ta will at the least not defeated by his own shewing but by the Lease made to Defendant this being traversed and found against the Defendant The Plaintiff by the acknowledgment of the Defendant himself hath a good Title against him to enter into the Land and by it the Defendant by his Re-entry is become Trespassâ—â— to the Plaintiff and he sayd that in 2 E. 4. fol. In Trespasse where the Defendant pleads that he let the Land to the Plaintiff for another mans life and that he for whose life it was was dead upon which he entred and it is adjudged that it sufficeth for the Plaintiff to maintain that Cestuy vie was yet living without making any other Title And yet these reasons Cleoch and Gawdy held the Replication good to which Popham sayd that we as Iustices ought not to adjudge for the Plaintif where a good formall bar is pleaded as here it is But wherby the Record it self which is before us we cannot see that the Plaintiff hath good cause of Action And therefore I agree that in Trespasse in some cases the Plaintiff may traverse the Bar or part of it without making any other Title then that which is acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the Bar but this alwaies ought to be where a Title is acknowledged to the Plaintiff by the Bar and by another means destroy by the same Bar for there it sufficeth the Plaintiff to traverse that part of the Bar which goeth to the destruction of the Title of the Plaintiff comprised in the Bar without making any other Title but if hee will traverse any other part of the Bar he cannot do it without making an especiall Title to himself in his Replication where by the Bar the first possession appeareth to be in the Defendant because that although the Traverse there be found for the Plaintiff yet notwithstanding by the Record in such a Case the first Possessions will yet appear to be in the Defendant which sufficeth to maintain his Regresse upon the Plaintiff and therefore the Court hath no matter before them in such a Case to adjudge for the Plaintiff unlesse in cases
there which to their Office of Sheriff appertaineth or any waies to intermeddle with it except only for the Sheriff of the County of Glocester to hold their County-Courts as is aforesaid And that the Major Aldermen of the said Town for the time being their Successors having power and authority to enquire here determine all things which Iustices of P. or Iustices assigned to hear determine Trespasses and Misdemeanors within the County of Glocest before this time have made or exercised And that the Iustices of Peace of him his Heirs or Successors within the said County of Glocester should not intermeddle with the things or causes which belong to the Iustices of Peace within the said Town c. And upon this Charter divers things were moved by Sir William Periam Knight now chief Baron of the Exchequer before his going into the Circuit 1. Whether by the saving of the Charter they have sufficient power reserved to them to fit within the Town being now exempted from the said Town of Glocester to enquire there of the Felonies done in the said County of Glocester And so for the Assises and Nisi prius taken there of things made in the County of Glocester Then if the the Sheriffs may execute their Warrants made there at the time of the Assises or Goal-delivery notwithstanding the exemption given to them by the Patent And it was agreed by all the Justices that the saving in the Patent is sufficient for the Iustices of Assise and Goal-delivery to sit there for the things which happen within the County of Glocester for as the King may by his Letters Patents make a County and exempt this from any other County so may he in the making of it save and except to him and his Successors such part of the Iurisdiction or priviledge which the other County from which it is exempted had in it before As in divers places of the Realm the Goal of a Town which is a County of it self or which is a place priviledged from the County is the Goal of the County and the place where the Assises or Goal-delivery is holden is within the County of the Town and yet serve also for the County at large as in the Sessions Hall at Newgate which serves as well for the County of Middlesex as for London and yet it stands in London but by usage it hath alwaies been so and nothing can be well prescribed unto by usage which cannot have a lawfull beginning by Award or Grant and this by the division of London from Middlesex at the beginning might be so And so the Goal of Bury c. And although that the words are saving to him and his Heirs yet by the word Heirs it shall be taken for a perpetual saving which shall go to his Successors which is the Queen and the rather because it is a saving for Iustice to be done to the Subjects which shall be taken as largely as it can be And albeit the expresse saving for the Sheriff is but for to hold his turn yet in as much as the authority of the Iustices of Assise and Goal-delivery in holding their Sessions as before was accustomed is saved it is Included in it that all which appertain to the execution of this Service is also saved or otherwise the saving shall be to little purpose And therfore that the Sheriff or other Minister made by the authority of these Courts is well made there and warranted by the Charter And wee ought the rather to make such exposition of the Charter because it hath been alwaies after the Charter so put in execution by all the Iustices of Assise But it seems that by this Commision for the County a thing which happens in the Town cannot be determined albeit it be Felony commited in the Hall during the Sessions but by a Commission for the Towne it may 7. SIr Francis Englefield Knight being seised in his Demesne as of Fee of Vide this case reported in Coke lib. 7. 12 13. the Mannor 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 wherby the Queen by her Warrant under her privy Seal required him to return upon which he was warned but did not come wherupon the Queen seised his Land for his contempt After vvhich the Statute of Fugatives was made 13. year of the Queen upon which by Commissions found upon this Statute all his Lands were newly seised and afterwards 17 Eliz. by Indenture made between him and Francis Englefield 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 other good considerations to raise an use that he and his Heirs and all others seised of the said Mannor c. shall hereafter stand seised of them to the use of himself for term of his life without impeachment of Wast 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 said Francis 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 with a Proviso further that if the said Sir Francis by himself or any other shall at any time during his life deliver or tender to his said Nephew a King of Gold to the intent to make the said Vses and Limitations void that then the said Vses and Limitations shall be void and that therafter the said Mannors c. shall be as before Afterwards the said Francis was attainted of Treason supposed to be committed by him 18 Eliz. A Le umures in partibus transmarinis le attainder fuit primerment utlagary apres per act de Par. 28 Eliz. by which the forfeiture of the Condition was given to the Queen and at the same Parliament it was also enacted that all and every person or persons which had or claimed to have any Estate of Inheritance Lease or Rent then not entred of Record or certified into the Court of Exchequer of in to or out of any Mannors Lands c. by or under any Grant Assurance or Conveyance whatsoever had or made at any time after the beginning of the Raign of her Majesty by any persons attainted of any Treasons mentioned in the said Act after the 8. day of February 18 Eliz. within two years next ensuing the last day of the Session of the said Parliament shall openly shew in the said Court of Exchequer or cause to be openly shewn there the same his or their Grant Conveyance or Assusance and there in the Term time in open Court the same shall offer
l. at such a day without saying how or in what manner these Debts accrued or when because the Action is nor meerly founded upon the Debt but upon the promise and the Debts are but inducements to it But if it were to recover the Debts themselves in an Action of Debt there ought to be made a certainty therof to wit when and how it comes And further here in as much as the Assumpsit is found for the Plaintiff it shall be implyed that the consideration was duly performed for without due proof of the consideration the Plaintiff hath failed of his assumption and therfore also it shall be now taken that the Testator hath such a term of years in reversion to which the term for years in possession may be surrendred for he said that he who hath ten years in possession may well surrender to him who hath more years as twenty in reversion for the lesser may surrender to the greater term To all which Popham and Fennor agreed And Popham said further although it shall be taken most strongly against Hughes to wit that Robotham had a lesser term in the reversion then Hughes had in the possession yet the surrender shall be good for in Law it is greater and more beneficiall for him to have a lesser term to be a term in possession then to have it to be in reversion â—â—nd by him if a Lessee for twenty years make a Lease for ten years then he wâ—ich makes the Lease for ten years hath a reversion upon these ten years so that if Rent be reserved upon it he may distrain for it and have Fealty of the Termor And if he grant the Reversion over for ten years with attornment of the Termor in possession the Grantee hath the Reversion and shall have the Rent for the time and yet the Remainder for years remains alwaies to the Grantor and therfore before the Reversion granted ever the Termor for ten years in possession might have surrendred to his Lessor and therby the said Lessor shall have so many of the said years which were then to come of his former term of twenty years And after the Reversion granted he which hath the ten years may surrender to the Grantee of ten years in Reversion and there he shall have so many years in possession which were to come of his Reversion Quod nota bene And if he had had a lesser term in the Reversiâ—n then the Lessâ—r himself had in the Possession it shall go to the benefit of the first Termor for twenty years who was his Grantor for the Term in possession is quite gone and drowned in the Reversion to the benefit of those who have the Râ—version therupon having regard to their Estate in the Reversion and not otherwise to all which Fennor agreed wherupon Gawdy gave the rule that Iudgment shall be entred for the Plaintiff But Popham said that if the consideration for the surrender had not been sufficiently alledged that the Plaintiff shâ—uld not be helped by the other consideration of 100. marks given by Thornel for if such an Assumption as this is be founded upon two more considerations and such which by possibility may be performed then the party hath failed of his Suit As if a man in consideration of 5 s. paid and of other 5 s. to be paid at a day to come assume to do a thing or to pay money if the one 5 s. be not paid or if it be not averred that the other 5 s. was paid at the day limited for the payment of it the party hath failed in his assumption in the one case and the declaration is insufficient in the other case for he hath made a departure from his consideration But if one of the considerations be impossible or against Law there the other considerations which are possible or stand with the Law suffice if they he well alledged And he said that the Executor shall be charged with the contract of the Testator by common course of the Court which stands upon reason for if an Action of Debt upon a bare contract be brought against an Executor if he do not demur upon it but plead to the Paâ—s that he owes him nothing and it is found against him he shall be theâ— by charged of the Goods of the dead and the cause why he may be helped by demurring upon the declaration in that case is becâ—use the Testator might have waged his Law in that case of debt which the Executor could not do of other contracts and therfore shall not be charged with it by such an act if he will help himself by demurrer but in â—he assumption of his Testator he could not have waged his Law and it is founded upon the death of the Testator to wit his debt with which the Executor by a mean may be charged as before and therfore the assumption in such a câ—se maintâ—inable against the Executor But if the Testator upon good consideration assume to make assurance of Land or to do any other such collaterall thing which doth not sound in a duty of a thing payable there the Executor shâ—ll never be charged with such an assumption to render recompence for it And to this agreed all the Iustices â—â— the common Bench and Barons of the Exchequer And such an assuâ—â—â—ion hath not been allowed in the Kings Bench but of late time and thâ—â— but 〈…〉 or two cases But in the other case it hath been common and of 〈…〉 and therfore now too late to be drawn in question and if it should â—â— it may be maintained with good reason in this case of a duty of â—â—ing payable in as much as the Testator cannot wage his Law in the Action but in the other case there is no reason nor course of the Court to maintaiâ— it But the Iudges in the Exchequer Chamber reversed all these Iudments in both cases 2. Nota that this Term was adjourned to Octob. Trin. and because the Writ was that Adjournment shall be made in Octob. Trin. of all cases untill Tres Trinitat the Adjournment was made in every of the Courts of Kings Bench Common Bench and the Exchequer the very first day of Octob. Trin. then it was holden by the Iustices that the Adjournment ought not to have been made untill the sitting of the Court the fourth day from Octabis And because that the Writs were that at the said Tres Tr. the Term shall be holden therafter as if no Adjournment had been the Iustices held that they ought to sit the first day of the said Tres Trin. and so from thence every day untill the end of the Term and for all causes as if no adjournment had been and so they did accordingly saving by assent some of the Iustices did not come thither by reason of their far distance from London at the end of the Term upon the last Adjournment But they held that if it had not been for the especiall words in the Writ which were
such Estates that the Law allows them to be good against the Lords themselves they performing their Customs and Services and therfore are more commonly guided by the guides and rules of the common Law and therfore as appeareth in Dyer Tr. 12. Eliz. Possessio fratris of such an Estate facit sororem esse haeredem And to say that Estates of Copyhold Land are not warranted but by custom and every Custom lies in Vsage and without Vsage a Custom cannot be is true but in the Vsage of the greater the lesser is alwaies implyed As by Vsage three lives have been alwaies granted by Copy of Court Roll but never within memory two or one alone yet the grant of one or two lives only is warranted by this Custom for the use of the greater number warrants the lesser number of lives but not è converso And so Fee-simples upon a Limitation or Estates in tail are warranted by the equity of the Statute because they are lesser Estates then are warranted by the Custom and these lesser are implyed as before in the greater and none will doubt but that in this case the Lord may make a Demise for life the Remainder over in Fee and it is well warranted by the Custom and therfore it seems to them that it is a good Estate tail to John Gravenor and a good Remainder over to Henry his Brother and if so it follows that the Plaintiff hath a good Title to the Land and that Iudgment ought to be given for him And for the dying seised of Elizabeth they did not regard it for she cannot dye seised of it as a Copyholder for she had no right to be Copyholder of it And by the dying seised of a Copyholder at common Law it shall be no prejudice to him who hath right for he may enter But here in as much as she cometh in by admittance of the Lord at the Court her Occupation cannot be fortious to him and therfore no descent at common Law by her dying seised for it was but as an Occupation at Will But if it shall not be an Estate tail in John Gravenor as they conceive strongly it is yet for the other causes alledged by Gawdy and Clench Iudgment ought to be given for the Plaintiff and the Remainder which is not good shall not prejudice the Fee-simple conditionall granted to John which is no more then if the Surrender had been to the use of Iohn Gravenor and his Heirs the Remainder over because that we as Iudges see that this cannot be good by Law and therfore not to be compared to the case where the Custom warrants but one life and the Lord grants two joyntly or successively there both the one and the other is void And this is true because the custom is the cause that it was void and not the Law and also it is a larger Estate then the Custom warrants which is not here and upon this Iudgment was given that the Plaintiff shall recover And by Popham it hath been used and that upon good advice in some Maâ—nors to bar such Estates tails by a common Recovery prosecuted in the Lords Court upon a Plaint in nature of a Writ of Entry in the Post 2. JUlius Cesar Iudge of the Admiralty Court brought an Action upon the Case for a Slander against Philip Curtine a Merchant-stranger for saying that the said Cesar had given a corrupt Sentence And upon not guilty pleaded and 200. marks Damages given it was alledged in arrest of Iudgment where it was tryed by Nisi prius at the Guildhall by a partiall Inquest because that upon the default of strangers one being challenged and tryed out a Tales was awarded De circumstantibus by the Iustice of Nisi prius wheras as was alledged a Tale could not have been granted in this case for the Statute of 35 H. 8 cap. 6. which give the Tales is to be intended but of commontryals of English for the Statute speaks at the beginning but of such Iuries which by the Law eught to have 40 s. of Free-hold and wills that in such cases the Venire facias ought to have this clause Quorum quilibet habeat 40 s. in terris c. which cannot be intended of Aliens which cannot have Free-hold And it goes further that upon default of Iurors the Iustices have authority at the Prayer of the Plaintiff or Defendant to command the Sheriff or other Minister to whom it appertaineth to make a return of such other able persons of the said County then present at the same Assises or Nisi prius which shall make a full Iury c. which cannot be intended of Aliens but of Subjects and therfore shall be of tryals which are onely of English and not of this Inquest which was part of Aliens And further the Tales was awarded only of Aliens as was alledged on the Defendants part but in this point it was a mistake for the Tales was awarded generally de circumstantibus which ought alwaies to be of such as the principall Pannell was But Per Curiam the exceptions were disallowed for albeit the Statute is as hath been said yet when the Statute comes to this clause which gives that a Tales may be granted by the Iustices of Nisi prius and is generally referred to the former part of the Act for it is added Furthermore be it enacted that upon every first Writ of Habeas Corpora or Distringas with a Nisi prius c. the Sheriff c. shall return upon every Juror 5 s. Issues at the least c which is generall of all And then it goes further And wills that in every such Writ oâ— Habeas Corpora or Distringas with a Nisi prius where a full Jury doth not appear before the Justices of Assise or Nisi prius that they have power to command the Sheriff or other Minister to whom it appertains to nominate such other persons as before which is generall in all places where a Nisi prius is granted and therfore this is not excepted neither by the Letter nor intent of the Law And where it is said such persons by it is to be intended such as the first which shall be of Aliens as well as English where the case requires it for expedition was as requisite in cases for or against them as if it were between other persons And Aliens may well be of the County or place where the Nisi prius is to be taken and may be there for although an Alien cannot purchâ—se Land of an Estate of Free-hold within the Realm yet he may have a house for habitation within it for the time that he is there albeit he be no Denison but be to remain there for Merchandise or the like And by Gawdy where the default was only of strangers the Tales might have been awarded only of Aliens as where a thing is to be tryed by Inquest within two Counties and those of the one County appear but not those of the other the
took other Hay of his own to wit the Plaintiff and mixed it with the Defendants Hay after which the Defendant took and carried away both the one and the other that was intermired upon which the Action was bought and by all the Court cleerly the Defendant shall not be guilty for any part of the Hay for by the intermirture which was his own act the Defendant shall not be prejudiced as the case is in taking the Hay And now the Plaintiff cannot say which part of the Hay is his because the one cannot be known from the other and therfore the whole shall go to him who hath the property in it with which it is intermired as if a man take my Garment and Embroider it with Silk or Gold or the like I may take back my Garment But if I take the Silk from you and with this face or embroider my Garment you shall not take my Garment for your Silk which is in it but are put to she Action for taking of the Silk from you So here if the Plaintiff had taken the Defendants Hay and carried it to his house or otherwise and there intermired it with the Plaintiffs Hay there the Desendant cannot take back his Hay but is put to his Action against the Plaintiff for taking his Hay The difference appeareth and at the same day at Serjeants Inne in Fleetstreet the difference was agreed by Anderson Peâ—iam and other Iustices there and this case was put by Anderson It a Goldsmith be melting of Gold in a Pot and as he is melting it I will cast Gold of mine into the Pot which is melted together with the other Gold I have no remedy for my Gold but have lost it Bullock versus Dibler 3. IN an Ejectione firmae between Edward Bullock Plaintiff and John Dibler Deâ—endant the case appeared to be this A man was seised of a Copyhold Tenâ—â—ent pâ—rcell of the Mannor of Stratfield Mortimer the County of Berks in right of his wife in his Demesne as of Fee and surrendred this Copy bold Tenement by himself without his wife to the use of a stranger in Fee who was 〈◊〉 by the Loâ—â— accordingly the Husband dies the wife dies the Heir of the wife without any admittance enters upon the stranger and makes a Lease for a year to the Plaintiff upon whom the Defendant in right of him to whom the Surrender was made re-enters and adiudged that the Plaintiff ought to recover and that the surrender of the Husband was not as a discontinuance against the wise to put the Heir to his Plaint in nature of a Sur Cui in vita for a Discontinuance shall not be by a Deed of Feement only but by it with the Livery ensuing wherby the entire Fee-simple is given what Estate so ever the Feoffor had by reason of the Livery where by Deed of Grant nothing passed but that which the party might lawfully grant And here it shall be taken as if the Grant had been made by the Husband which passed but his Estate to wit that which he might lawfully grant without prejudice to his wife But yet there is this diversity between a surrender of an Estate for life and a surrender of an Estate in Fee to the use of a scranger to wit that by the one the Estate drowned in the Lord by the surrender and by the other it is not drowned in the Lord but is transferred to him to whom it was made upon which he is admitted to it otherwise in the last case it returns to him who surrendred and then upon the admittance he is in the Per by him who surrendred and not by the Lord or by the Surrender made by Tenant for life he to whose use it is made ought to take it of the Lord and he is there in by him and not by him who surrendred And this is the common difference betwixt Customary Estates for lives and Customary Estates of Inheritance And the Plaint of Cui in vita is given where recovery by default is against the husband and wife and not upon the surrender of the husband for suppose the husband had surrendred meerly to the Lord himself yet the wife might have entred after the death of the husband because the surrender goes but to the Estate which the husband might lawfully part with and therfore rather to be resembled to a Grant then to a Feoffment And notwithstanding that he was not admitted yet he might enter and take the profits and make a Lease according to the custom or bring an Action of Trespasse against him who disturbes him But if the Lord require his Fine or his Services and the Heir refuse to do them this may be a forfeiture of his Copyhold But untill lawfull Seisin made by the Lord because it belongeth to him the Heir may intermeddle with the Possession albeit he be not admitted by the Lord where it is an Estate of Iuheritance by the Custom And in this Term also in another case in the same Court it was adjudged that an Infant who surrenders his Copyhold Land within age may enter at his full age without being put any Suit for it And the first case was very well argued by one Brock a Puny utter Barister of the Inner-Temple this Term for the Plaintiff And it was the first Demur that he argued in Court Forth versus Holborough 4. IN an Action of Debt upon an Obligation of 200. marks brought by Robert Forth Doctor of Law and Mary his Wife as Executrix to Doctor Drewry against Richard Holborough the Case upon Demurrer appeared to be this to wit That the said Dr. Drewry was seised in his Demesne as of Fee of the Suit of the Mannor of Goldingham Hall in the County of Essex and so seised the last day of Novemb. 27 Eliz. demised it to the said Richard Holborough for 17. years from the said last day of Novemb. wherby the Defendâ—nt antred into it the next day and was therof possessed accordingly and so possessed the last day of Novemb. 28 Eliz. entred into an Obligation to the said Dr. Drewry with condition that if he his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes or any of them should well and truly pay or cause to be paid to Dorothy Goldingham widow or her Assigns at the Mannor-house of Goldingham Hall in the County of Essex for the Term of 17. years from the Feast of S. Michael the Arch-angel then last past or an Annuity or annuall Rent of 20. marks of lawfull English money at the Feast of the Annunciation of our Lady and S. Michael the Arch-angel by equall portions if the said Dororhy shall so long live and the said Richard Holborough or his Assigns or any other claiming by or under the said Richard or his Assigns shal or may so long occupy or enjoy the said Scite of the Mannor of Goldingham Hall that then the Obligation shall be void after which untill the 9th day of May 29 Eliz. the Defendant enjoyed the said Scite
in making pursuit And it is not the form of the pleading to alledge that he pursued him freshly and had him alwaies in his view untill he re-took him but only that he pursued him freshly and took him in this fresh pursuit without saying any thing that he was in his view and therfore his being out of the view of the Sheriff is not materiall in the case but the fresh pursuit and the taking of him in this pursuit Then Coke moved that the Bar was not good because he doth not shew where he made the pursuit so that he might agres to answer that which is alledged by the Plaintiff to wit his being at large at London and therfore the Bar not being good Iudgment shall be given against the Defendant for the insufficiency of his Bar for a Repleader shall not be in case of Demurs as it hath been adjudged here very lately and also in the Common Bench. To which it was answered by the said Iustices That if the Bar be insufficient in matter so that it may appear by it that the Plaintiff hath sufficient cause of Action which in matter is not sufficiently avoided by the Bar Judgment shall be given for the Plaintiff upon the Bar if the Replication be sufficient and no Repleader but if the Bar be sufficient for the matter and insufficient for the form only as it is here there before the Statute of Eliz. for pleading there shall be a Repleader but now because no Demurrer was upon the Bar but a Replication made to it therfore by Popham no advantage shall be taken of the Bar for matter of form which is admitted by the party and no advantage taken therof according to the Statute And they all agreed that the Sheriff albeit he did not make fresh pursuit upon the escape may yet take re-take the Prisoner who escaped from him out of Execution for the Prisoner shall not take advantage to avoid the Execution and therfore in respect of the Plaintiff who yet may accept the Prisoner to be in execution the Sheriff may re-take the Prisoner But if the Plai had recovered against the Sheriff before for the escape then the Sheriff for his Indempnity cannot re-take him but is put to his Action upon the Case against the Prisoner for the Sheriff hath no colour in such a case of escape to retake him but in respect and for the advantage of the Plaintiff who had Iudgment against the Prisoner and not in respect of the private wrong done to himself of which he hath no Iudgment and as it is now the Replication not being good by Popham Iudgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff But by assent it was ordered that the Defendant shall put in new Bail and that upon it he shall plead anew But how shall it be if the Sheriff do notmake fresh Suit and re-take him And afterwards he at whose Suit he was in Execution recovered against the Sheriff may the Prisoner have an Audita querela upon the matter Vpon an Assembly of all the Iustices at Serjeants-Inn in Fleetstreet with the Barens of the Exchequer it was cleerly agreed by them all but two who at the beginning made some doubt of it but at the end assented also If in the night the house of any be broken with an intent to steal any thing being in the house although no person be in the house at this time yet this is Burglary for the Law is that every one shall be in security in the night as well for their Goods as their persons which be in the house And if a Church be broken in the night for the stealing of any thing in it this is Burglary though no person be in it at this time And so hath the Law alwaies been put in execution and in all the Books which speak of Burglary it is not mentioned that any person ought to be in the house but that it is Burglary the Messuage being â—eckâ—n in the night to the intent to kill any person thâ—â—e or to the intent to steal any thing out of it And the case that of late time it hath been put in the Inditements of Burglary that some person was then there c hath been because that in such cases of Burglary Clergy was taken away but now by the Statute of 18 Eliz. Clergy is taken away in every case of Burglary And the ancient Presidents are Quod domum of such a one Nectanter Felonice burglariter fregit without making mention that any person was then in it or making mention that it was Domus mansionalis of any And it may be a Mansion House albeit no person then inhabit in it And agreed that hereafter it shall be so put in execution by all the Iustices See this more fully hereafter Trin. 36 Eliz. Pl. 1. in this Book AT Tres Paschae this Term there were made for Serjeants at Law viz. Lewkenor Savage and Williams of the Middle-Temple Heale only of the Inner-Temple Kingsmill Warburton Branthwaite and Flemming of Lincolns-Inn and Daniel and Spurling of Grayes-Inn And all the Iustices were assembled in the Middle-Temple Hall the Wednesday past Mâ—nsem Paschae being the second day of May where the two chief Iustices and chief Baron sate upon the Vpper-Bench of the same Hall in their Scarlet Robes with their Collers of S. S. and every one of the other Iustices and Barens in their Ancienty one on the one side and the other on the other side in their Scarlet Robes also and then came the new Serjeants in their black Gowns before the Iustices there the two eldest being put in the midst before the chief Iustice of England and so every one of them one on the one side and the other on the other side according to their Ancienty and every one of the said Serjeants having one of his Servants behind him at his back with his Masters Scarlet Hood and Coife upon his arms And therupon the said chief Iustice made his Speech in this manner IF men will enter into a due consideration upon what grounds the Laws of this Realm have their Original Foundation and what good effects are wrought through the due execution of the same they might say and that justly that the profession therof is both an honest and honourable Profession The Laws are derived partly from the law of God and partly from the Law of Nature From the Law of God in that it ordaineth means how the people may be truly instructed in the knowledge and fear of God How they should demean themselves towards their Soveraign and Prince How they ought to live one with the other and how to be defended from oppressions and injuries From the Law of Nature in that it provideth how each man may defend himself that he may live by his own labours or otherwise according to his profession or calling That he may secure his Posterity of that which he hath gathered together by his industry and that man with man
in themselves do purport And if it had been good for the matter yet it is not good for the form for want of a Traverse for without the Traverse the plea is not answered in that case which is laid to the charge of the Defendant But Popham and Clench held strongly to the contrary and that this Bar is good in matter and as the case is cannot be otherwise and that the form also is good enough and yet the two Affirmatives cannot make a good Issue but in case of two Affirmatives a Traverse shall not be but where the Affiâ—matives do not agree in one As if the Defendant in Trespasse Intitles himself by the Feoffment of a stranger and the Plaintiff reply and maintain that the same stranger did enfeoff him this cannot make a good Issue without a Traverse of the Feoffment alledged to be made to the Defendant But in the same case if the Plaintiff saith that true it is that the stranger enfeoffed the Defend an t but this was to the use of the Plaintiff and his Heirs there no Traverse shall be on the Plaintiffs part because as to the matter of the Feoffment it agrees with the Defendant in which case it shall not take any Traverse but there the Traverse shall come on the Defendants part to maintain the Feoffment to his own use Absque hoc that the Feoffment was to the use of the Plaintiff for now that which the Defendant saith albeit it be in the Affirmative yet it is a Traverse to that which the Plaintiff hath alledged and therfore he needs not traverse the plea And so a diversity where the Affirmative is to traverse that which is alledged by the other party and where not for in one case the conclusion shall be with a Traverse and in the other not Then in this case when the Plaintiff alledged that the Defendant spake these words which prima facie shall be intended to be spoken in this sence as the Plaintiff hath alledged although no Innuendo had been in the case for if it shall not be so intended without the Innuendo the Innuendo will not help it yet when the Defendant hath declared the circumstance wherupon these words were spoken and then the speaking of them therupon now he hath confessed the very words themselves to be spoken but upon the circumstance discovered to be in another sence then prima facie they are to be taken and therfore he shall not take a Traverse for he acknowledgeth the very words but not the intendment which the very Law prima facie presumes upon the words and therfore shall not take a Traverse for this intendment of Law being answered by matter expresly in the plea shall never be traversed as in the case put of a Feoffment prima facie it shal be intended to be to the use of the Feoffee yet when the other party maintains that this Feoffment was to his use he shall not take a Traverse to that which the Law intends and presumes And if a man upon speech had with a Hunter saith That he hath murthered all the Hares within 7. miles of his house and another answer and say he is a Murtherer indeed wherupon the Hunter brings an Action upon the Case against him for saying that the Plaintiff was a murtherer the Action will well lye Yet when the other shall discover the communication wherupon the words were spoken this shall be a good Bar without a Traverse yet if it be true that there were no such communication between the parties as is mentioned in the Bar the Plaintiff then hath good cause of Action and therfâ—re he may well say De injuria sua propria absque tali causa and this being sound it shall be against the Defendant So upon speech of a Butcher who had killed a 1000. Oxen in a year and one hearing it will say that he is a notable Murtherer this upon the matter disclosed is not actionable And it shall be mischievous by a Traverse or by pleading generally not guilty to put such speciall matter in the mouth of Lay-people to give their Verdict upon being ignorant and therfore easie to be miscarried in theâ—r judgment and therfore it shall be the rather admitted by speciall pleading to be put to the judgment of the barred Judges then into the mouths of lay Gents And here when Fletcher speaking of the order to be taken by the Councell upon the Petition said that the Earl would obey their order to which the Defendant answered that he knew not what the Earl would do the said Fletcher said therupon that he was a Subject and what was the intent of Fletcher in saying so no other but that because he was a Subject therfore he ought to obey and if it be so to be understood as of necessity it ought or else they were not spoken by Fletcher to any purpose which cannot be intended then shall the words following being spoken therupon by the Defendant be taken to be spoken in answer to the matter of the Speeches spoken by the said Fletcher and this is that he was sorry and it was his grief that he must be so subject as to be bound therby to obey their Order as if a man saith to another that he was sorry that he was so subject that he must obey a Iudgment against him in the Queens Court this is no cause of Action for this tends but to his subjection to the Law or good order or the like which do not give cause of Action As if one saith of another that he is of the Temple who alwaies rebell against the Governours of the said house then saith another to him Will you then say and maintain that he is a Rebell yes sayes one of the other I will do so If an Action be brought for the last words the Action will lye but if the other discover the circumstances of the Speech in the Bar wherupon it was spoken the Action will not lye And this the Defendant may well do without traversing that which is alledged because he acknowledgeth it although in another sense then the Law Prima Facie imports upon the Declaration And if in Speech between two one of them saith of a stranger that he hath treacherously betrayed his Friend in revealing all his secrets and councell wherupon the other then saith that he hath done as a Traytor therin and the other saith to him again he is a Traytor and he answering to it saith true he is a Traytor Now if the stranger brings an Action of the Case against him for saying of these last words Prima Facie it imports good cause of Action without any Innuendo as that he intended therby that he was a Traytor to the Queen because the words in common intendment have such a sence yet upon the matter disclosed by way of Bar with the circumstances how they were spoken the Plaintiff shall be barred if he cannot maintain that they were spoken without such a cause which
to be given for the Plaintiff Gawdy conceived that it is executed by the intent but not by the letter of the Statute for the purpose was to remove all the Estate from the Feoffee and to put it in Cestay que use wholly to wit in possessions to the Vses which were in Esse and in aleyance as to the Vses which were to come and contingent and now by the same Statute the contingency of the possession shal go in licence of the contingent Vse and now an Vse limited to one for life with Remainder over to the Heirs of the body of I. S. or to the first Son of I. S. shall be in the same manner as if Land at this day had been letten to one for life with Remainder over to the Heirs of the body of I. S. or to the first Son of I. S. and not otherwise for the quality which he had in the Vse the same by the very letter of the Statute he shall now have in the possession and Estate of the Land and the Statute is not to undo any Vse but to transfer an Estate in the Land to the Vse But he said That by the Feoffment made to Christopher the Contingent remainder which was devested in Stretchly and Iohn Chudleigh depending upon the Estate which Sir Iohn Saintleger and his Co-feoffees had for the life of Christopher is utterly gone and destroyed in the same manner as where a Lease is made for life the remainder to the right Heirs of I. S. or to the Heirs of the body of I S. if the Tenant for life dies or aliens wherby he makes a forfeiture and determines his Estate in the life of the said I. S. his Heir shall never have the Land by the remainder afterwards because he was not in Esse as an Heir at the time when the Estate ended for there cannot be a remainder without a particular Estate neither can it stand or be preserved And as in this case without a particular Estate of Free-hold a Remainder cannot be no more in the case now in question being now become by means of the Statute as if it had been an Estate executed in possession and for this cause only he conceived that Judgment ought to be given against the Plaintiff And Clench agreed with this opinion in all and both of them agreed if there be none to take the Vse according to the limitation at the time when it falleth to be in Possessions that he shall never take it although it happen to be in Esse afterwards Clark said that Uses were not at Common Law but grew by sufferance of time as appeareth by the words of the Statute it self and the mischief and subtlety which was before this Statute was not in the Fine Feoffment or other Assurances of Land but by means oâ— the Uses limitted therupon contrary to that which was used in the ancient course oâ— the Common Law and the Statute was made to reduce the Common Law to its ancient force and course and therfore ought to conceive such a construction as may agree with the purpose of the makers of the Statute and therfore the best construction of this Statute is not to execute other manner of Uses but in some cases to extinguish them as where it is such as will make the case in as ill or worse condition then it was before the making of the Statute It hath been agreed by all that the Statute doth not execute any Use which was suspended at the time of the making of the Statute as by reason of a Disseisor or the like hapning before and if it doth not execute the Use which is in suspence for the right which he had in the Use how can it execute the Use which hath not any being for in such cases of Infants not born as here untill they be in Rerum natura the Use cannot have any being And in the same manner in all cases where the Vse is not to rise but upon a future contingent And what good shall this Statute do if these leaping Vses shall arise without being impeached Nothing but alwaies nourish a Viper in the bosom of the Law which is quite against the intent of the makers of the Statute The Law was made to preserve peace amongst the Subjects and to assure their Possessions as many other Statutes did that were made about this time as the Statutes of Fines Wills and others But if the exposition of this Statute shall be as the other side hath taken it it will make the confusion which will happen therupon intollerable and much worse then it was before the Statute was made and as Walsh said if no assurance can be made to be forcible against such a contingent Use this will make it worse then it was before And hesaid that it was not to be compared to the interest of Lands to begin at a time to come nor to the case where a man devise that his Land shal be sold in which case be shall not be impeached by any manner of assurance to be made in the mean time by the Heir and the reason is because the Vendee takes by the Will under the Estate of the Heir and not by the sale and therfore upon the matter he conceived that the Plaintiff ought to be barred Periam said that Uses were at Common Law and to prove it he vouched 24 H. 8. abridged in Brook And he said that there have been alwaies trusts Ergo Uses ab initio but they had not such estimation at the beginning as they have had by continuance of time and so it was of Copyholds And these Uses at Common Law bind but in privity according to the trust but do not bind in the possession of him who cometh to the Land in the Post But now by the Statute all trusts are gone and the Estate of the Land it self transferred to the Use and now the Use guides the Land and not the Land the Use And the Statute did not intend to destroy any Use but to bring it back to the Possession according to the course of the common Law and to avoid the fraud And as before the Statute the Use it self in such a case of Contingency was in obeyance for the time so now the Estate it self is in obeyance by the Statute which wills that he shall now have an Estate in the Land it self of such a quality as he had before in the Use for the Statute puts all cleerly out of the Feoffees and it is not inconvenient to have a Possession so to a Contingent Use and if it had not been in the words of the Statute yet as hath been sayd it shall be so taken by the intent of the Statute for it never was the intent of the makers of the Statute to do wrong to any by means of the Statute And therfore he put the case of Cramner who made a Feoffment to the use of himself for his life and after his decease to the use
precedent to it which not being done the Estate of Edmund never hapned to be and therfore he who cometh in under a Discontinuance made by the said William Cocksey after the death of Martin and Giles without Issue notwithstanding the Remitter of the said Alice in the case is to have the Land against those who come in by the said Edmund and upon this point only Iudgment was given accordingly in the Kings Bench. Grenningham versus the Executors of Heydon 4. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200. marks by Richard Grenningham Plaintiff against the Executors of one Ralph Heydon Defendants the case appeared to be this upon Demurrer The said Heydon was bound to the Plaintiff in 200. marks the Condition wherof recites that wheras the said Heydon had received of the said Grenningham 76 l. 6 s 8 d. before the date of the said Obligation of 200. marks in payment and satisfaction of certain Obligations and Bills of debt remaining in the hands of the said Heydon and specified in the Condition what they were in certain and the which said Bills Obligations the said Heydon is to deliver or cause to be delivered to the said Grenningham his heirs or assigns before the Feast of S. Michael next ensuing the date of the said Obligation or otherwise the said Heydon his Executors Administrators or Assigns or some of them before the same Feast shall make or cause to be made and delivered to the said Plaintiff his Heirs and Assigns such good and sufficient Acquittances for the payment of the said summs of money formerly mentioned as the said Plaintiff his Heirs Executors or Assigns shall devise or cause to be devised by the Counsel of the said Plaintiff his Heirs or Assigns before the Feast without fraud or deceit that then the said Obligation shall be void c. And before the Feast the said Plaintiff did not devise any acquittance Whether now the Obligation be saved by the Disjunctive without delivering the Obligations and Bills before named before the Feast of S. Michael Rot. 36 37. Eton and Monney versus Laughter 5. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 400 l. by Thomas Eton and Roger See this Case Coke lib. 5. 21. by the name of Laughters case Monney Plaintiff against Thomas Laughter Defendant who was bound together with one Richard Rainford to the said Plaintiffs the Condition of which Odligation was That if the said Richard Rainford after marriage had between him and Jane Gilman Widow together with the said Jane alienate in Fee or Fee-tail all that great Messuage of the said Jane in London in the Tenure of William Fitz Williams Esquire if then the said Richard Rainford in his life time purchase to the said Iane her Heirs and Assigns Lands and Tenements of good Right and Title and of as good value as the money raised upon the alienanation of the said Messuage amounts unto or leave to the said Iane after his decease as Executrix or by Legacy or other good assurance so much money as he shall receive or have upon the said Sale that then the Obligation shall be void after which the said Richard Rainford married with the said Jane and the said Richard and Jane sold the said Messuage in Fee by Fine for 320 l. received by the said Richard Rainford after which the said Iane died no Lands being purchased to the said Iane by the said Richard and the said Richard yet living Michaelmas Term 37 38. Eliz. Sawyer versus Hardy 1. IN an Ejectione firmae by Christopher Sawyer Plaintiff against Edmund Hardy Defendant for a Messuage in S. Martins upon a Demurrer the case was this A Lease was made of the said Messuage to one Margaret Sawyer for 40. years upon Condition that if the said Margaret should so long continue a Widow she should dwell and stay in the same Messuage the said Margaret continued a Widow and dwelt in the same house all her life and died during the said Term of 40. years making the Plaintiff her Executor and by award the Plaintiff had Judgment to recover For by Popham Gawdy and Clench this now was no Condition nor Limitation for it hath no certain conclusion upon the that if to wit that then the Term shall continue or that she shall pay so much or otherwise what the conclusion shall be none can imagine As if such a Lease be made upon condition that if the Lessee does such a thing without other conclusion it is a good Lease for 40. years for none can imagine what the conclusion shall be in such a case or that then the Lease shal be void or that he shall re-enter or that the Lessee shall forfeit so much or what shall happen upon it for which incertainty it shall be taken as a void Clause But by Popham if it had been Sub conditione si tamdiu vixerit it had been good to determine the Lease but it is otherwise of the word quod si for the incertainty as before And they all agreed that if the Lease had been for 40. years Si tamdiu sols viveret inhabitaret in eodem Messuagio that the Lease had been determined by her marriage or death In the same manner as if it had been Si tam diu vixerit And so in truth had been the case if it had been well pleaded but by pleading the advantage therof was lost and the truth not disclosed But by Popham If a Lease be made for 40. years if he shall dwell in the same for his life there it is good for 40. years upon performance of the Condition the diversity appeareth to wit where it is if he shall dwell there during the Term and where it is if he shall inhabit there during his life Goodale versus Wyat. 2. IN an Ejectione firmae by Cuthbert Goodale Plaintif against John Wyat See this Case Coke lib. 5. fol. 95 96. by the name of Goodales case Defendant for a Meadow in Aylesbury in the County of Buck. called Diggelmore upon a speciall Verdict the case was this Sir Iohn Packington Knight enfeoffed therof one Ralph Woodliff to have and to hold to him and his Heirs upon condition that if the said Sir Iohn within a year after the death of the said Ralph pay to the Heirs Executors or Administrators of the said Ralph the summ of a 100. marks of lawfull money that then the said Feoffment and Seisin made therupon shall be void Ralph Woodliff made a Feoment over to others therof and died intestate and Administration was committed to Anne his Wife and Drew Woodliff his Son and Heir who gave a Warrant of Attorney to Thomas Goodale then seised of the said Meadow by mean conveyances for the receit of the said 100. marks with Covenant that none of them shall do any act or thing that shall be preâ—udiciall or hurtfull to the said Thomas Goodale for the receiving and enjoying of the said summ after which it was certified to the said Sir Iohn Packington by
it shall not be taken by intendment that the Messuages had such a Curtilage to it if it be not specially named Fennors Case 5. IN Trespasse brought by Fennor in the common Bench against for breaking his Close in c. the Defendant pleads a Bar at large to make the Plaintiff assign the place in certain where he supposeth the Trespasse to be done the Plaintiff therupon alledgeth that the place where he complaineth is such c. and sheweth in certain another then that in which the Defendant justifies the Defendant avers that the one and the other are all one and known by the one name and the other and therupon the Plaintiff demurs and adjudged there for the Plaintiff because that in such a case upon such a speciall assignment it shall be taken meerly another then that in which the Defendant justifies in as much as the Plaintiff in such a case cannot maintain it upon his evidence given if the Defendant had pleaded not guilty to this new Assignment that the Trespasse was done in the place in which the Defendant justifies although it be known by the one and the other name and that the Plaintiff hath good Title to it because that by his speciall Assignment saying that it is another then that in which the Defendant justifies he shall never after say that it is the same in this Plea for it is meer contrary to his speciall Assignment And upon this a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and the Iudgment was there affirmed this Term for the same reason Quod nota Scot versus Sir Anthony Mainy 6. IN Debt upon an Obligation of 200 l. brought by John Scot Gent. against Sir Anthony Mainy Knight the Condition wherof being to perform the Covenant comprised in an Indenture of Demise made by the said Sir Anthony to the said Plaintiff of his Capitall Messuage in Holden with the Lands to it belonging c. amongst which Covenants one was that wheras by the same Indenture he had demised it to him for 21. years that the said Sir Anthony covenanted with the said John Scot that the said Sir Anthony from time to time during the life of the said Sir Anthony upon the surrender of this Demise or any other Demise hereafter to be made by the said Sir Anthony of the said Messuages and Lands and to be made by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators and upon a new Lease to be made ready ingrossed to be sealed and offered by the said John Scot his Executors or Administrators to the said Sir Anthony for the like tearm and number of years in the aforesaid Indenture comprised for the same Rent c. to seal and deliver to the said John Scot his Executors and Administrators And the said Sir Anthony as to this Covenant pleaded did not surrender nor offer to surrender to him the said Demise nor offer to him any new Demise of the Premisses ready engrossed for to seal it for the like Term c. as it is in this Covenant And for the other Covenants he pleads performance of all To which the Plaintiff replies that the said Sir Anthony after the Obligation and before the Action brought had rendred the said Messuages and Lands by Fine to one Walter Savage and William Sheldon their Executors and Assigns for eighty years from the Feast of Easter next before the Fine which was Pasch 36 Eliz. wherby he said that the said Sir Anthony had disabled himself to renew his Lease according to the Covenant upon which it was demurred in the Commen Bench and the Iudgment given for the Plaintiff as appeareth Trin. 37. Eliz. Rot. 2573. And upon this Iudgment a Writ of Error was brought in the Kings Bench and agreed this Term. And it was moved that the Iudgment given was erroneous in as much as the first act was to be done by John Scot before the new Lease was to be made to wit the surrender of the former Lease and the drawing of the new one ought to have been done by the Plaintiff which not being done on his part the said Sir Anthony is not bound to make the new Lease And also it was moved that as the case is here the said John Scot might surrender to the Defendant notwithstanding the intervening of this Lease between the Lease of the Plaintiff and the Inheritance of the Defendant as if a man make a Lease for years in possession and afterwards make another Lease to a stranger to begin after the end of the former Lease this shall not hinder but that the first Lease may be surrendred to him who was the Lessor notwithstanding the said Term intervening To which it was answered by the Court that the Plaintiff here need not to make any offer of the surrender of his Term to the said Sir Anthony in as much as the said Sir Anthony hath disabled himself to take the Surrender or to take the Lease according to the purport of the Condition and by this disabling of himself the Obligation is forfeited Come per 44 E. 3. 8. and by Littleton also If a man make a Feoffment upon condition to re-enfeoff him this is not to be done untill request therof be made by the Feoffor yet if in the mean time the Feoffee suffer a fained recovery of the Land grant a Rent charge acknowledgeth a Statute taketh a Wife or the like the Feoffor may re-enter without request made to re-enfeoff him and the reason is because that by any of these the Feoffee hath disabled himself to perform the Condition in the same plight as he might have done at the time of the Feoffment in the same manner here for by this render by the Fine the Reversion passe in right so that the Termor in possession attorning to it they shall have the Rent reserved upon the first Lease and therfore the Plaintiff cannot now surrender to the said Sir Anthony but to the Grantees of the Reversion and therfore there shall be no prejudice to the Plaintiff because the Defendant was the cause of disabling the Plaintiff to make the Surrender to him And suppose it be but a Term to begin at a day to come yet by this the Obligation is forfeited because the Obligor hath therby disabled himself to perform the Condition in such a plight as he might have done it when the Obligation was made wherby the Obligation is presently forfeited albeit the Plaintiff never surrender nor offer to do it And therfore the Iudgment there was affirmed Mounson versus West 7. IN an Assise brought in the County of Lincoln before Gawdy and Owen by Thomas Mounson Esquire Demandant against Robert West Tenant for Lands in Sturton Juxta Stu. The Defendant West pleaded Nul Tenant del Frank-tenant named in the Writ and if that be not found then Nul tort nul Disseisin And the Assise found that the said Defendant was Tenant of the Tenements now in Plaint and put in view to the Recognitors of
was given this day The same Term in the same Court. Goodwin versus Willoughby GOodwin brought an action upon the case against Joane Willoughby wife of Thomas Willoughby and upon non Assumpsit pleaded it being found for the Plaintiff it was moved in Arrest of Iudgment 1. That the Plaintiff shews that Thomas Willoughby was indebted upon account and doth not shew that Joane Willoughby is Executrix or Administratrix and yet that she promised to pay wheras in truth she hath no cause to pay for there is no consideration and so Nudum pactum Jermy for the Plaintiff for the first because it doth not appear for what cause he accounted I answer that this is but a meer conveyance And for the second that she does not suppose that the Feme is executrix c. But here is a good consideration which is that she shall not sue or molest and that he gave day for payment this is a sufficient consideration But Stone of counsell with the Defendant said that the first is the ground of the action and therfore he ought to shew for what he accounted Crew chief Iustice two exceptions have been taken 1. For the alledging the manner of the account which I conceive is good enough and he need not shew the cause of the account And as to the second because it doth not appear that she is Executrix or Administratrix and so no consideration and so no Assumpsit But here she assumes to be Debtor and makes a promise to pay which is an acknowledgment of the Debt by inference and therfore he conceived that the Assumpsit was good Doderidge Iustice for the first it is good enough yet Cum indebitatus existit is no good Assumpsit but here he shows a speciall way of Debt and it would be long and tedious to describe his account For the second there is no cause of action because it doth not appear that she is Executrix or Administratrix or Executrix of her own wrong If I say to one do not trouble me and I will give you so much this is not actionable for there ought to be a lawfull ground and for this cause the Declaration Where forbearance without cause of action is no ground of an Assumpsit is void for it is only to avoid molestation Give me time c. this is no good Assumpsit for forbearance is no ground of action where he hath no cause to have Debt Jones Iustice agreed in the first with them because a generall action upon the case sufficeth and in truth it is but an inducement to the action but for the other part he doubted and he cited one Withypools case an Infant within age promised to pay certain money he makes an Executor and dies within age the Executor saith to him to whom the promise is made forbear and I will pay you and there an action upon the case did lye against the Executor upon this promise and yet it was a void Contract but there was colour of action forbear till such a time now the other hath lost the advantage of his Suit But he gave no opinion Crew It is a violent presumption that he is indebted But by Doderidge here is no colour to charge her but only by inference that she is Executrix If a stranger saith forbear such a Debt of J. S. and I will pay it it is a good consideration for the losse to the Plaintiff and in this case it appears not that there is any cause and Broom Secondary said that Withypools case before cited was reversed in the Exchequer Chamber Jones If an Infant makes a promise it is void and he may plead non Assumpsit which Doderidge did not deny But upon his Obligation he cannot plead Non est factum for he said that he shall be bound by his hands but not by his mouth The same Term in the same Court Drope versus Theyar IN Debt by Drope against Theyar an Inne-keeper upon Issue joyned and a Verdict for the Plaintiff Bolstred moved in Arrest of judgment for the Defendant and the matter was that one Rowly who was servant to Drope lodged in the White Heart at S. Giles and there had certain Goods of his Masters which were stoln from him in the night and Drope the Master brought an action therupon and it was moved by Bolstred that the Plaintiff was without remedy 1. Because it was in an Inne in London for the Register 105. is Quando quis depraedatus euns per patriam which as he said could not be extended to an Inne in London 2. It ought to be an Inne as Inne-keeper 3. He ought to be as a Guest lodging and this appeareth in Culeys case in 5 Jac. in Celly and Clarks case which was entred Pasch 4. Jac. Rot. 254. It was adjudged that where the Guest give his Goods to his Host to deliver to him three daies after and the goods are lost that an action is not maintainable against the Inne-keeper for them and this was in an Inne in Uxbridge And in one Sands case where the Guest came in the morning and his Goods were taken before night he shall have an action against the Inne-keeper 4. The Goods ought to be the Goods of the party who lodgeth there for the words are Ita quod hospitibus damna non eveniunt and here the Master who brought the action was not Guest But admit the Master shall have the action yet he ought to alledge a custom that the Master shall have the action for the Goods taken from his Servant Trin. 17 Jac. Rot. 1535. Bidle and the Master brought an action for Goods taken from the Servant and there it was resolved that he ought to conclude that Pro defectu c. and apply the custom to him being Master Sec Co. Book of Entries 345. And that a custom that for other mens Goods in the custody of Guests the Owner shall have an action against the Inne-keeper if they be stollen Ob. This is the Common Law and therfore ought not to be alledged Answ Where a man takes upon him to shew a custom he ought to shew it precisely he cited Heydons case Co. lib. 3. 28 H. 8. Dyer 38. And it was said for the Plaintiff that Goods are in the possession of the Master which are in the possession of his Servant and so here the Master might have had action well enough 8 E. 4. my Servant makes a Contract or â—â—ies Goods to my use I am liable and it is my act By the Court an Inne in London is an Inne and if a Guest be robbed in such an Inne he shall have remedy as if he were Enns per patriam But the cheife point was whether the master shall have the action in the case where the Servant lost the goods and by Jones Justice in 26 Eliz. in C. B. upon the Statute of Hue and Cry it was resolved that if the Servant be robbed the Master may have the Action and so by him
Terme in the same Court WEld of the Inner Temple moved for a Prohibition to the Ecclesiasticall Court at Worcester and shewed for cause 1. That the suit there was for money which by the assent of the greater part of the Parishioners of D. was assessed upon the Plaintiffe for the reparations of the Church to wit for the recasting of their Bels the truth is that the charge was for the making of new Bels where there were four before whereby it appears that it is meerly matter of curiosity and not of necessity for which Parishioners shall not he liable to such taxations and he relied upon 44. E. 3. 19. by Finchden 2 The party there is overcharged of which the Common Law shall Judge 3 The Party hath alledged a Custome that he and all those who hath an estate in such a Tenement have used to pay but 11 s. for any reparation of the Church But the Prohibition was denied and by Doderidge in the Book of 44 E. 3. there was a By-law in the case to distrain which is a thing meerly temporal for which the Prohibition was granted per Curiam in this case the assessment by the major part of the Parishioners binds the party albeit he assented not to it and the Court seemed to be of Opinion that the Custome was not reasonable because iâ—â—aid a burthen upon the rest of the Parish Littleton of Counsell of the other side suppose the Church falls shall he pay but 11 s. Whitlock If the Church falls the Parishioners are not bound to build it up again which was not denied by Justice Jones The same Term in the same Court A Prohibition was prayed because a person had libelled in the Ecclesiasticall Court for the tenth part of a bargain of Sheep which had depastured in the Parish from Michaelmas to Lady day and the party surmised that he would pay the tenth of the Wooll of them according to the custome of the Parish But the Prohibition was denyed for as Doderidge Iustice sayd by this way the person shall bee defrauded of all if he shall not have his recompence for now the Sheepe are gone to another Parish and he cannot have any Wooll at this time because it was not the time of sheering Nota per Whitlock de animalibus inutilibus the Person shall have the tenth part of the bargain for depasturing as Horses Oxen c. but de Animalibus Utilibus he shall have the Tith in specie as Cowes Sheep c. The same Term in the same Court UPon an Issue joyned in an Ejectione firmae it was found for the Plaintiff and Lewkoor moved in arrest c. because the Ejectione firmae was de Messuagio â—ive Tenemento which is not good for the incertainty and so it was resolved 12. Jac. in this Court and Ejectione firmae lies not De Tenemento Co. lib. 11. 54. Savils case And it was resolved in the Exchequor-chamber that it lies not de pecia terrae and in this Court in Rhetorick and Chappels Case it was resolved that it lyes not De Mess Tenemento The same Term in the same Court Sir Robert Browne against Sir Robert Stroud IN debt upon an Obligation for performance of certain Covenants contained in certain Indentures made between the Parties aforesaid and the Covenant upon which the question did arise was this R. B. being seised of the Mannor of Dale S. R. S. of the Mannor of Sale they exchanged the one for the other and the Mannor of R. B. being more worth then the Mannor of R. S. R. S. covenanted to pay for the said Mannor 1200 l. and no time was limited when the money should be payd and the money not being payd within a year after R. B. bargained and sold the said Mannor by Deed indented and inrolled to J. S. and his Heirs and afterwards brought an Action of Debt against the said R. S. for the said 1200 l. who pleaded this mater in Bar and Jermy argued for the Plaintiff that this Plea shall not discharge the Defendant of the said Covenant for it is a reciprocall covenant and he ought to sue the other Party for the breach of the covenant and it is a perfect bargain Dyer 30. 14. H. 8. 9. and here the Agreement is in writing and it is good albeit there be no limitation when the money shall be payd 37. H. 6. 9. Calthrop for the Defendant that the Action could not lyâ— for the contract is Executory and therefore is not to pay the money till he hath the Mannor for the Covenant is that pro Maner c. he should pay him 1200 l. and the word pro implies a condition and consideration and being excecutory on the one part shall be also executory on the other part 9. E. 4. 20. 21. Abridg. in Plowden 134. in Browning and Bestons case 15. E. 4. 4. If A. grant to B. all the ancient Pale and for them B. grants that he will make new Pale for A. if B. cannot have the old Pale he shall be excused from making the new Pale for he cannot have the one without doing the other 6. E. 6. Dyer 75. The contract was pro 20. which makes a condition 15. H. 7. 10. by Fineaux If a man covenant with me to serve me for a yeare and I covenant to give him 10 l. he shall have an Action for the 10 l. although hee do not serve me otherwise if I covenant to give him 10 l. for his service Also there is no time limited when the payment shall be made true it is that in Co. lib. 6. 30. when the act to be done is a transitory act and no time is limited there it ought to be done in convenient time but the Law shall judge of the conveniency of this time and the Law will never judge the time of payment to be before he hath the Mannor pro quo c. In many cases when no time is limited the Law will appoint a time as appeareth in 33. H. 6. 48. and Perkins 799. But now in our case the Law will never appoint that this money shall be payd because the other party hath disabled himselfe to perform his part like to Sir Anthony Maines case Co. lib. 5. 21. Doderidge The bargain is not perfect because no day of payment is limited and the other shall have no Action of Debt for the money before he hath the Mannor Jones If I covenant to make a Feoffment to J. S. and he covenant in consideration of that Covenant to pay me 10 l. he shall have an Action of Debt against me before he hath made the Feoffment And at another day in Trinity Term. 3. Car. Noy argued for the Plaintiff and opened the case thus Amongst other Covenants in certain Indentures between them it was agreed that wheras Sir R. Brown the Father was sâ—ized of the MaÌ„nor of Gadmaston with the Advowson appendent Sir R. Stroud of the MaÌ„nor of D. within the same CouÌ„ty that there
another 20. H. 6. 15. And a scilicet is but an Exposition of that which is once before and it shall not destroy the precedent matter but if it be contrary to it it is voyd Co. lib. 5. Knights case A scilicet shall not make an alteration of that which went before 15. Jac. B. R. Desmond and Iohnsons Case In a Trover and Conversion the Plaintiffe declared that he was possessed of the said goods 1 Jan. 15. Jac. and that Postea scil the first day of May hee in the yeare aforesaid lost them and that they came to the hands of the Defendant and upon issue joyned it was found for the Plaintiffe and this was moved in arrest of Judgement and by the Court the scil was agreed to be void and the Postea good and the like case was 17. Jac. in Debt The second Question is a man makes Conusance for Rent for him in remainder in taile and does not alledge the precise time when the Lessee for life died but onely that he died and I conceive that it is well enough 1. Because an Avowry which is in lieu of an action is a reall action and in reall actions no precise day need to be alledged 2. Because he avows for 4 s. rent due and the arreare to the remainder which implies that the Lessee for life is dead See 14. Eliz. Dyer The case of a person in one Arundalls case a man was Lessee for ninty years if the Lady Morley should so long live in an action brought by him as Lessee for years in his Declaration he did not averre that the Lady Morley was alive and yet awarded good Trin. 12. Jac. in Hord and Paramores case the defendant avowed as Heir of Sir John Arundell and alledged no time incertaine of the death of Sir John Arundell and yet awarded good for the reason aforesaid and therefore he prayed Judgment for the Avowant The same Terme in the same Court. Jenkin versus Vivian IN trespas Jermy for the Plaintiff took some exceptions to the Plea of the Intr. Hill 1. Car. Rot. 331. Defendant 1. That the Defendant claim common in Trigemore Moore ratione Vicinagii and doth not say a tempore cujus contrarium memoria hominum non existit 2. The Defendant alledgeth that he and all his Occupiers of Down-close had used to have common in the said Tridgemore Moore c. whereas he ought to have shown what estate they had in Down-close who have used to have this coÌ„mon Rol. there néed no prescriptioÌ„in this case no more then in a coÌ„mon appendant which case of a coÌ„mon appendaÌ„t was agreed by the whole Court for it is mixt 6. E. 4. 55. Co. lib. Intr. 625. tit trespas For the 2. exception I agree that if it be by way of prescription then it is not good as it is alledged here but if it be by way of custome as here it is then it is good for a custome goes to Land and a Prescription to persons Hill 11. Jac. Higgs brought an Action upon the Case for erecting of a new Mill and alledged a Custome that he and all the Inhabitants c. an exception was taken to it and it was there ruled that it was good because alledged by way of custome Co. lib. 6. Gatewards case and also Mich. 14. Jac. it way be alledged by way of custom as our case is and 15. E. 4. when it is by way of discharge it may be alledged in all Occupiers Jermy for the Plaintiff It cannot be a custom here for as it is in 23. Eliz. Dyer A custom cannot extend to a particular place and this was agreed by the whole Court But there is another exception he clayms common in Tridgemore Moore for cattle levant and couchant in Down-close and does not aver that these beasts were levant and couchant upon Down-close and per totam Curiam this ought to be averred and it was also agreed that in this case he ought to have prescribed But for the exception of all occupiers it was doubted but for the other exceptions Iudgment was given for the Plaintiff The same Term in the same Court. Chambers Case IT was said in this case that in debt upon a Recognizance acknowledged in Chancery or in any other Court the Defendant cannot demand Oyer of the condition for the Recognizance is not in Court as an obligation is when debt is brought upon it But if Debt be brought upon a Recognizance acknowledged in this Court then the Defendant may demand Oyer of the Recognizance The same Term in the same Court Harison versus Errington IN Error to reverse an Inditement of rescous and Riot taken in the County Palatine of Durham Bankes assigned the Errors whereof one was therâ— was a Warrant to three conjunctim divâ—sim to arrest the sayd Harison and two of them arrest him and therefore the Arrest was not well done for it ought to have been by one or all three and the reason is because it is a ministeriall act otherwise if it had been a judiciall act 14. H. 4. 34. 2. The Inditement of Riot was against three and the Iury found only one of them guilty of the â—â—â—ot this is a voyd verdict for one alone cannot make a riot like to the case in 11. H. 4. 2. Conspiracy against two and only one of them is found guilty it is voyd for one alone cannot conspire And at another day in the same Term Noy took other exceptions 1. Because the Inditement is Jurator pro Domino Rege presentant c. and doth not say that 12. Iurors presentant and peradventure but 11. did present 2. The names of the Iurors ought to have been certified for peradventure they are not probe legales homines but Villains and Outlawes 15. H. 4. 41. 3. It is sound that Rolson the Sheriff by vertue of a Writ directed to him came c. and upon this rescous was made by Harrison c. and it doth not appear what manner of Writ it was scilicet Elegit Capias ad satisfaciend on c. and if there were no Writ there can be no rescous and albeit he had a Writ yet if execution were done by vertue of another Writ which he had the Party may disobey it as if upon an habere facias seisinam the Sheriff makes a Warrant as upon a Capias the party is not bound to obey the Bayliffe if hee bee not a Bayliffe knowne but in case it appeares they were only Bayliffs pro hac Vice Nota that an Inditement before Coronâ—rs which found that the Earl of B. was felo de se was quasht because it did not appear that it was per sacramentum probor legal hominum And in the case of Sarum this Term an Inditement was quasht for the same cause The same Term in the same Court. Rochester versus Rickhouse IN a writ of Error to reverse a Judgement given in Ejectione firmae in Newcastle Banks assigned these errors 1. The Plaintiffe declares of
If the Tenant for life had made a Feoffment in Fee and he in the Remainder had released to the Feoffee the Vse had been gone for ever so in all these cases of contingent Vses at this day for he who cometh to the possession of Land by Disseisin or wrong done to the Possessor who is seised to anothers use shall never be seised to anothers use And the case being so that it is out of the letter of the Statute to execute such contingent Vses it is more strong for them out of the meaning of the Statute to execute then before they happen to be in Esse for this shall be to make all mischiefs comprehended in the Preamble of this Statute and against which the Statute intended to provide sufficient remedy in a worse mischief then they were before the making of the same Statute and this shall be but a perverse instruction of the Statute And they said that the subtleties used from time to time by means of those Vses to the great deceit and trouble of the people were the cause of the making of this Statute 27 H. 8. and by all the Statutes formerly made touching Vses it appeareth that they were all taken to be grounded upon fraudulent and crafty devises and therfore this Law had no great purpose to favour them but a Fortiorari not to make them in worse case by means of the Statute then they were before and therfore it shall not be taken that the Vse is executed by the Statute which stands upon a contingency of which a greater mischief will ensue then there was in such a case before the Statute and therfore by the Feoffment made in the interim before the birth of the Infants which otherwise ought to have preserved the Vse this Vse was utterly destroyed and although the Feoffee of Christopher had notice of the Vse yet this doth not now help in the case because the Feoffment did wrong to the Estate first setled which was subject to the Vse and extinct in the same possibility which had been otherwise in the Feoffees to have given livelyhood to the said Contingent Vse And therfore the Iudgment by them ought to be that the Plaintiff shall be barred Walmesley That the great mischief which was at Common Law upon these Feoffments to Uses was that none could know upon the occupation of the Land who was true Owner of the Land for Cestay que Vse was the Pernor of the Profits but in whom the Freehold or Inheritance of the Land was there were not many which knew wherby great mischief came to the assurances which men had of Land which they purchased and by it men knew not against whom to bring their Actions to recover their Rights and by it Wives lost their Dowers Husbands their Tenancy by the Curtesie Lords their Escheats Wardships and the like And this mischief hapned by reason that one had the profit and another the estate of the Land And the Statute was made to put the Land and the Estate quite out of the Feoffee who before did not meddle with the Land to Cestay que Use who before had but the occupation and profits of the Land and to this intent the letter of the Law serves very well which sayes that the Estate of the Feoffee shall be cleerly in Cestuy que Use and therfore nothing by the intent and letter of the Law is now to remain in the Feoffee no more then a Scintilla juris nemor'd in Brents Case in my Lord Dyer Eliz. and the whole Estate in the interim untill the contingent happen shall be in them who have their Vses in Esse and when the Contingent happen the Statute gives place to this Contingent Vse and by the execution therof comes between the Estates before executed and as out of these by the Statute but nothing is now after the Statute in the Feoffees for the purpose of the Statute was as I have said to take away all from the Feoffee for all was devested from him because that betwixt the Feoffor the Feoffee was all the fraud before the Statute and the very letter of the Statute is to extinguish and extirpate the assurances fraudulently made which was alwaies by reason of assurances made between the Estate of the Land in one and the possession therof in another and to cause that now that the Estate shall be to the use where the occupation was before And this Statute was not made to extinguish or discredit Vses but to advance them as by bringing the very Estate in possession to the Vse and by it the trust now taken from all others who were trusted with it before so the Statute doth not condemn the uses but the fraud which was by reason of them before And the Statute being that the Estate Right and Title of the Feoffees shall go to the uses therfore nothing remaineth in the Feoffees but all by authority of Parliament adjudged to be in Cestay que use which is the highest Iudgment that can be given in any Court and the words Stand and be seised at any time refer as well to the future as present uses and the Statute intended as well to help the uses which shall be upon any Contingent as those which are at present for a future or contingent Vse is to be said an Vse according to its nature or quality and it shall be executed according to its quality when it happen And the words are that the Estate which was in the Feoffee shall be in Cestay que use and not the Estate which is and therfore when the use hapneth to be in an instant the Estate which at the first Livery was in the Feoffee to this use shall now be executed in possession to this contingent use albeit it self was altogether executed as I said before in the Vses which were in Esse and if so it followeth that nothing which is done in the mean time by the Feoffee or can be done by any other can prejudice or hurt the execution of this Vse in contingency when the contingency happen And for the case of Brook 30 H. 8. it is plain in paint which is this A Covenant with B. that if B. enfeoff him of three acres of Land in D. that then the said A. and his Heirs and all others seised of such Lands shall stand therof seised to the use of the said B. and his Heirs after which A enfeoffed a stranger of this Land after which B. enfeoffed the said A of the said three acres now the use shall be to the said B. and his Heirs of the said other Land for the Statute so binds the Land to this Contingency when it happens that by no means it can be defeated and this is the cause that Leases made by force of Provisoes comprised in assurances are good and cannot be avoided for the Interests to these Leases is wrought by the first Livery and the Statute atd therfore upon the matter I conceive that Judgment ought